Is Climate Change BAD?

[obsidian]

climate change is happening, wether or not its good or bad depends on what we make of it. weather has always led to evolution. a changing enviroment demands a change in the way of life. the only question is can we adapt? for the most part i think we will be fine. global warming does not only entail warming of the planet, it also causes sporadic weather patterns, and potentially old cycles are disrupted (our seasons). a tornado in london england, how rare was that? here in ontario we've been fluctuating between -30 and +4 celsius. we've only had 1 major snow fall. in BC theyve had the costliest season yet. vancouver had a snow storm in november, then later had several sever storms that caused millions in damages. and if we look south, yes south, we will find MORE snow. in upstate new york they got 6 feet in 1 week... as of now i dont think we are prepared, but i doubt we will act until it becomes essential/profitable.

[jbg]

as of now i dont think we are prepared, but i doubt we will act until it becomes essential/profitable.

Act? The way King Canute held back the waves? There have been huge swings from Ice Age to interglacial period. Humans are going to act to stop this? How?

[obsidian]

the subordinate was mentioning prepared. good or bad in the grandest scheme equates to life and death. im saying that could survive climate change, but as of now, the majority is unprepared, and we have no real plan of action. as you said "There have been huge swings from Ice Age to interglacial period" yet we still exist, yet life still exist. surely you do not think a change in climate means an end of all life, it means that the animals that evolve to the changes will survive, and those who don't die.

[jbg]

The problem is that moving Toronto or New York City out of the way of an advancing ice sheet, or the increasingly hostile weather that would precede an Ice Age may be more difficult than moving nomadic cave men or FN's.

[obsidian]

this far from the 1st time anything like this has happened, but potentially this time it is the most volatile

-we are experiencing more direct energy from the sun

-the current position of the earth(rotational axis) allows for even more energy to be absorbed

-we now have the highest co2 percentage ever recorded, which means an even greater green house effect

this doesn't mean warmer temperatures, which the majority thinks. this rise in temperature interrupts and destroys the earths natural cycles. it will dramatically shift weather patterns making them nearly impossible to predict. global warming is far from turning the entire world into a tropical tourist destination. the desalination of the ocean alone would affect global temperatures. the earth, for the most part, is a closed system. where else did we think all this pollution and excess energy would go?

[JerrySeinfeld]

FIND ME A RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC STUDY STATING LONG TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS AS OUTWEIGHING THE COSTS.*Not a heavily edited 10 sentance resume put forth by oil firms, but an actual, independant SCIENTIFIC study.

Objecttive report not so much stating the benefits outweigh the costs, but simply that people who ignore the benefits and exaggerate the costs are idiots.

Dr. S.J. Tol is not an Oil Industry Lacky (from the National Post):

Tol is no fringe outsider to the scientific debate. He is at the centre of the academic investigation of global warming, a central figure in the scientific establishment that has been developing the models and the knowledge to understand the global warming phenomenon. At the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, considered by most the authoritative body in the field, Tol is involved as an author in all three of its Working Groups. He is also an author and editor of the United Nations Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. He is also a mover and shaker in the prestigious European Climate Forum. He takes global warming seriously and has dedicated his professional life to making a contribution for the better in climate policy and related fields.

[marcinmoka]

Objecttive report not so much stating the benefits outweigh the costs, but simply that people who ignore the benefits and exaggerate the costs are idiots.

I don't think any person will ignore that are benefits, but that's NOT THE POINT nor is that what I asked for. I'm asking if the benefits outweigh the costs?

Everything we do SHOULD BE a cost/benefit analysis. You attack others (rightly so, I'll admit) for ONLY LOOKING AT COSTS, whereas you are NO BETTER IF ALL YOU LOOK AT IS BENEFIT and IGNORE THE COSTS.

P.S. The site doesn't work.

[sunsettommy]

What about this one:

Warmer ocean surface: less carbon absorbed from atmosphere by ocean

Correct.

However at least two PEER REVIWED papers recently published show a cooling in the ocean in recent years.

So if it is true then more CO2 is now being absorbed back into the ocean waters.

[B. Max]

Is Climate Change BAD?

Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter. The fact is the climate has always been changing and people have always adapted. Committing economic suicide is not adapting, it is a return to the dark ages. Who in their own time adapted and did not adapt by returning to the age of the cave man.

[shoggoth]

What about this one:

Warmer ocean surface: less carbon absorbed from atmosphere by ocean

Correct.

However at least two PEER REVIWED papers recently published show a cooling in the ocean in recent years.

So if it is true then more CO2 is now being absorbed back into the ocean waters.

Negliable amounts compared to what is being emitted. Emissions are the driving force behind co2 rise at this time rather than ocean temperature. co2 rise has shown no slowdown in the last few years.

The cooling of the oceans is at a certain depth, and preliminary results indicate that cooling was temporary and has ceased.

[jbg]

Negliable amounts compared to what is being emitted. Emissions are the driving force behind co2 rise at this time rather than ocean temperature. co2 rise has shown no slowdown in the last few years.

The cooling of the oceans is at a certain depth, and preliminary results indicate that cooling was temporary and has ceased.

Given that water vapor is 97% of the total greehouse gases, it is hard to see CO2 having much influence.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Negliable amounts compared to what is being emitted. Emissions are the driving force behind co2 rise at this time rather than ocean temperature. co2 rise has shown no slowdown in the last few years.

The cooling of the oceans is at a certain depth, and preliminary results indicate that cooling was temporary and has ceased.

Given that water vapor is 97% of the total greehouse gases, it is hard to see CO2 having much influence.

You know the one that really makes me laugh? The goobers who say the ocean is a "carbon sink" - completely ignoring the fact that the ocean also happens to be the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases into the world's atmosphere: ie. water vapor.

[sunsettommy]

Is Climate Change BAD?

How can it be bad when climate is ALWAYS changing?

[gc1765]

You know the one that really makes me laugh? The goobers who say the ocean is a "carbon sink" - completely ignoring the fact that the ocean also happens to be the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases into the world's atmosphere: ie. water vapor.

Water vapor has been coming off the ocean since as long as the ocean has existed, and will continue to do so no matter what humans do. But anyone with a grade 3 education knows that the water vapour condenses back into a liquid and falls back to the earth in the form of rain, snow etc...

[sunsettommy]

You know the one that really makes me laugh? The goobers who say the ocean is a "carbon sink" - completely ignoring the fact that the ocean also happens to be the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases into the world's atmosphere: ie. water vapor.

Water vapor has been coming off the ocean since as long as the ocean has existed, and will continue to do so no matter what humans do. But anyone with a grade 3 education knows that the water vapour condenses back into a liquid and falls back to the earth in the form of rain, snow etc...

Giving up what in the process?

LOL.

[gc1765]

Giving up what in the process?

LOL.

Huh?

[sunsettommy]

Giving up what in the process?

LOL.

Huh?

You missed something in your simple hydrological description.

[gc1765]

You missed something in your simple hydrological description.

No I didn't. The only thing that it gives off in the process is heat, but obviously we both know that it takes an equal amount of heat to vapourize the water in the first place, so there is no net gain in heat. So, if you are somehow trying to imply that it is related to global warming, I think we both know it is completely irrelevant. As I mentioned before, this has been going on for bilions of years, long before humans existed. If you aren't implying that it's related to global warming, and you have another point, I'd love to hear what your point is.

[kimmy]

Is climate change bad?

To put it in terms that avid righties would appreciate, it's going to be awfully unprofittable.

Climate change will bring (as the name suggests) change. Sometimes, change can create opportunities. But change can also cause disruption to established industries and economies and practices.

for instance, if winters are no longer cold enough to kill off parasites such as pine-beetles, then agricultural industries (such as forestry) are going to be adversely affected. If agricultural areas find themselves find changing temperatures or amounts of precipitation, crop yields are going to be affected.

If land that used to be suitable for grazing cattle becomes more suitable for raising alpacas, then that'll be a blow to cattle ranchers but a boon to alpaca farmers.

Change in itself isn't necessarily bad, but there will be economic winners and losers. In situations where there are large economic interests vested in the climate status quo, the effects of climate change could be quite dramatic.

-k

[sunsettommy]

You missed something in your simple hydrological description.

No I didn't. The only thing that it gives off in the process is heat, but obviously we both know that it takes an equal amount of heat to vapourize the water in the first place, so there is no net gain in heat. So, if you are somehow trying to imply that it is related to global warming, I think we both know it is completely irrelevant. As I mentioned before, this has been going on for bilions of years, long before humans existed. If you aren't implying that it's related to global warming, and you have another point, I'd love to hear what your point is.

You are correct here.

The part you still miss is the last part you still have not addressed.

The transfer of that heat into the upper atmosphere.

[jbg]

As I mentioned before, this has been going on for bilions of years, long before humans existed. If you aren't implying that it's related to global warming, and you have another point, I'd love to hear what your point is.

Exactly. If there weren't some GHG's around, the earth would be uninhabitable. The missing link here is tieing such gases, or purported changes in their volume, to any temperature changes, and divorcing it from natural cycles.

[gc1765]

You are correct here.

The part you still miss is the last part you still have not addressed.

The transfer of that heat into the upper atmosphere.

What is your point?

[sunsettommy]

You are correct here.

The part you still miss is the last part you still have not addressed.

The transfer of that heat into the upper atmosphere.

What is your point?

Wow the answer is right there and you still miss it!

[gc1765]

Wow the answer is right there and you still miss it!

Thanks for avoiding the question

[Rue]

Does anyone care to deal with the scientific facts?

According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers on page 8, the scientific world has arrived at a consensus agreement that increased levels of greenhouse gases due to HUMAN activity have been the major influence of the recent warming patterns and NOT natural phenomena.

Apprently had we had know greenhouse emissions it could be said our planet would be so much colder, (i.e., 30 degrees centigrade or 54 degrees farenheit) that it might be uninhabitable or it would look a lot different then it does now however I have no idea how some of you posters made the leap from saying since there are greenhouse gases not created by man made activities, there is NO warming effect from man made activities. That kind of denial makes no sense and to me is no different then people who argued there was no direct link between cigarette smoking and cancer.

Can we deal with the facts? Apparently the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, (36-70% of the greenhouse effect), carbon dioxide (9-26% of the greenhouse effect), methane (4-9%) and ozone (3-7%). What you deniers choose to selectively skip over is the fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the earth’s atmosphere increased 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750.

These increases have been objectively quantified and no one is denying them. So then explain to me. Why is it these increases of carbon dioxide are their highest since data has been able to be collected by scientists (from looking into the ice cores)? Scientists say the carbon dioxide in all the 650,000 years they can measure, has never been so high.

In fact from what I have read most geologists agree that carbon dioxide levels haven’t been this high in 24 million years.

It is a scientific fact that 75% of HUMAN created carbon dioxide emissions during the last 20 years have come from our cars, trucks and using oil (fossil fuel) according to the Working Group of Intergovernment Agencies on Climate change. They state the rest of the explanation for this surge in carbon dioxide concentration can be attributed deforestation.

So I state again-it is ridiculous to pretend our use of cars, trucks, and burning off fossil fuels, plus the deforestation of our rain and other forests, all human made activities as well as our decision to burn coal, use aerosol sprays and discharge other chemicals into the atmosphere from our industrial activities has not exasperated and accelerated the greenhouse effect past what would have otherwise been a normal warming pattern nowhere near what we see now.

I think it is absolutely asinine to think we can pollute the atmosphere and it has no permanent consequence.