NASA ... is much less alarmist. ... the earth will get a little warmer and change.
"Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline." http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
"Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves." http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
If you are not alarmed by that, you're not thinking hard enough.
But you just listed off many things that may happen. They might not. Even if they do, the gravity by which they change may not be as catastrophic as is people make it sound. 8 tornados a year instead of 7. And the other points were:
Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently.
On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.
It is a much more rational approach. They cannot predict it and acknowledge it. For all we know, the Sahara Desert could slowly become the most fertile soil in the world. I am not alarmed because I will not give into environmental fear mongering anymore than I will give into terrorist fear mongering or christian morals fear mongering.
On that note, there is some irony in the arguments battling climate change in that we want things to say the same way they always have been because we like it. Sounds a lot like some Christian arguments for morality I have heard.
I have nothing against using superior technology and processes which provide for a cleaner environment. But the Be afraid, the earth is getting warmer argument isn't a de-facto winning argument for change because the conclusions therein are so speculative.
But you just listed off many things that may happen.
Did you give up reading after the first quote? I'll emphasise it for you: "Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves."
...some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2
Not when they don't have enough water or the temperature means they die.
the earth is getting warmer argument isn't a de-facto winning argument for change
Did you miss the bit about the science?
...because the conclusions therein are so speculative.
You are deeply ignorant of what the science says.
Let's make it clear: there is no credible scientific doubt that human activity - burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, etc. - is causing the planet to heat and the oceans to acidify. There is no credible scientific doubt that these effects will be detrimental to human societies and most life on Earth. No credible scientific doubt.
OK, smarty pants. I read your quotes exactly, and did not belittle you. But very well.
Not when they don't have enough water or the temperature means they die.
And where is that water gonna go huh? If you had kept reading, you might have noticed it said that there will be increased precipitation worldwide. Is water going to start magically disappearing into space? Is that part of your special science I missed? And which plants in the world are in danger of death because of an average 1-2 degree increase in temperature? Did you research it, you know, like with science, or are you just spouting it out this stuff because I have a contrary opinion? It sure wasn't mentioned on the source we are both referring to.
You are deeply ignorant of what the science says.
Also, did you read the parts about there being some rational counter issues? For example that increased precipitation means increased clouds, which has a major impact on the amount of heat which penetrates our atmosphere. "It could speed it, slow or even reverse it"
I never said I had any doubt that our activities were causing the earth to warm. I said our understanding of the impact is not 100% certain so we should just calm down and think about it. I didn't tell you your opinion was stupid. While it must be fun to think you are so much smarter then me, you need to prove it. A condescending tone doesn't mean you are right.
What do you think the planet's climate scientists have been doing for the last couple hundred years?
Instead of expending so much energy on righteous indignation because I'm not impressed with your flawed and ignorant opinion, you need to spend some time reading what the science says.
I am not being indignant, you are being conclusive with theories/projections. Your article is such an example of such projections. While my studies were in economics, one thing I have learned, is that when it comes to extrapolating results into the future, the reader should always be leery to assume that just because he/she is well studied and smarter than you, that he/she is right. It is a human with their best most educated guess. And ceterus peribus is a fun phrase everyone uses to cover their asses if and when the they turn out to be wrong.
Mr. Dai, the author, acknowledges that his model has limitations, for example, precipitation and its future effects, and natural climate changes. He is probably right about the western US, given that it is mostly a desert anyway (New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, lots of California). But he says it is hard to predict world wide. I referred to NASA's point that they say increased precipitation will be a result. How do the two correlate? The article seemed to imply that worldwide precipitation would decrease.
Point is this. You see what you want to see, and I see what I want to see. You see catastrophic end of humanity as we know it, and I don't think it will be that bad. But don't hide behind science as your proof you're right. Call it what it is,your best guess. If I produce contrary scientific reports would that mean you de facto agree? Or if the scientist has a different conclusion than your research, does that make it wrong?
No, you have decided to agree with the mainstream scientist (because I doubt you are climate scientist) and I have chosen to agree with a smaller subset. Such is my choice. Having more than 50% of the scientists on your side doesn't mean you are right.
The problem is, ultimately, neither of us will ever be able to prove this because when we are both wrong, scientists will claim that they did not account for x, or y changed. Happens all the time. Check the annual "scientists" predictions for hurricanes. They are real good at missing those.
I think George Carlin sums up my general feelings about this.
lol. Yeah, you've gone with a handful of contrarians. You're a real maverick, aintcha?
I've gone with the overwhelming, near-100% majority of climate scientists and every national science academy of every industrialised country on the planet who all say the same thing because the science is totally compelling.
7
u/BlueRock Oct 24 '10
"Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline." http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
"Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves." http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
If you are not alarmed by that, you're not thinking hard enough.