Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate

[roobleh]

^how will u not be affected? Do u live under a different atmosphere?

[Geel_jire]

^ I see you're making use of your strong deductive reasoning skills in other threads as well

 

Cara

 

I do agree on that the people on both sides sometimes do come off as fanatics although the tree huggers are far worse in my opinion because they have this tendancy to paint it as this eminent danger that will affect everybody today .. where if they are even right to begin with .. it will be a few centuries down the road. The ones fanatically opposed usually have a vested financial interest in it somehow .. be it a factory that produces green house gases or an industry that is dependent on it.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Cara:

You're right to be unconvinced. The evidence is not as cut and dried as some people will argue. I think the intelligent thing to do is to read up on as you did, but I hope you understand that there are powerful groups who want everyone to dismiss the topic out of hand. Aren't you properly skeptical of the capitalist agenda?

Why is he right to be unconvinced - I don't get that part of your comment.

 

Climate change is pretty much undisputed. A while back the UN got together a whole range of experts from all fields to study this topic and the results were unequivocal on its happening. What is subject to some debate is the extent and timeline that its adverse effects will be felt.

 

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global averageair and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level"

 

"Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."

 

And a lot of other useful information is in their recent report which is extremely readable for laymen.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Geeljire, waa isla fahanay now marka. About jiritaanka global warming or not, taas in la isku mashquuliyaba ma'aha. Laakiinse saa aragno dhulkaan dad ayaa hunguri bas u daran walaaqay oo wasaqeeye, oo leerta, ciiddeeda iyo baddeedaba dhaafin oo sumeeye.

[Cara.]

ThePoint,

 

Climate change is undisputed, what's arguable is how much human actions affect the climate. There are natural cycles of warming and cooling of the planet. Once the Sahara was a lush jungle, and glaciers once covered Ohio. Since this was well before the combustion engine, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the current trends are natural rather than manmade.

[ElPunto]

^Yes but those same scientists who told us about the natural cycles of warming and cooling, the formerly lush Sahara and the glaciers in Ohio are the same ones telling us that the burning of fossil fuels by man is the primary driver of climate change. Does it make sense that scientists would disregard all the previous work on natural cycles when looking at this issue? I would argue no. It's an odd sort of dichotomy that you are proposing there.

[Cara.]

Yeah? Well, you're wrong and I'm right. How's that for a dichotomy?

 

Seriously though, you make a good point and I would agree with you. But to play devil's advocate: It's one thing to look at rock formations and figure out that a glacier retreated sometime between 15000 BC and 12000 BC, the evidence is rock-solid (pardon me). It's another thing entirely to be sure that we know all the facts about the causes of global warming IN REAL TIME. A few years down the line the trends might all reverse themselves because it turns out sunspots were responsible, or maybe an underwater volcano, or Australia drifting too near New Zealand. There are counter-theories, even though clearly I'm not familiar with them!

 

Keep in mind also that the time scales involved here are tiny by geological standards. It's usually not possible to pinpoint any definitive changes in the composition of the atmosphere to within a thousand years or so. 250,000 years ago is not distinguishable from 251,000 years ago, even though we're talking a huge span by the standards of human lifespans. But maybe there were temperature fluctuations that simply didn't get recorded because they happened too quickly.

 

Bottom line: scientists make mistakes, they've even agreed on stuff and turned out to be wildly wrong. Or they could change their minds just like they suddenly decided Pluto wasn't good enough to be a planet. Messed up the whole mnemonic for remembering the order of planets :mad:

[rudy-Diiriye]

snow!! what is dat!! i am so glad that i havent seen this shyte since my last trip to the east cost in march 2003...that was just traces i found on the ground...! that stuff sucks big time.

 

move to la...pple!! u gonna live sun shine and hot sinyooriitas..if u like hot ladies!! lool

[Sir-Qalbi-Adeyg]

Check this out, beautiful piece of architecture: Burj al-taqa. Green Skyscraper. It seems UAE is taking climate change seriously.

 

http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/skyscraper-creates-all-its-own-energy.html

 

"This skyscraper, to be built in Dubai, is called the Burj al-Taqa (’Energy Tower’), and it will produce 100% of its own power. The tower will have a huge (197 foot diameter) wind turbine on its roof, and arrays of solar cells that will total 161,459 square feet in size. Additional energy is provided by an island of solar panels, which drifts in the sea within viewing distance of the tower."

[N.O.R.F]

^

 

Bahrain World Trade Center.

 

Already completed and occupied. It can generate upto 15% of it's energy through it's wind turbines. Only problem is, the national grid company has so far refused to allow them to feed it (kilowatts generated from the turbines) into the system.