Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

But that doesn't mean there is a correlation either. Especially when the frequency of hurricanes this decade is the lowest on record.

   

I don't know if there's a greater expert on hurricnes anywhere. Very few I'd say. NOAA merely conjectured that this season's crop of hurricanes were not due to climate change. I was speaking in terms of the long term picture -- as sea surface temperatures increase, so, presumably, will the severity of hurricanes.

Here's a NOAA scientist onm the issue...

   

More heat plus more CO2 plus more water encourages more plant growth.
Do not mow your lawn if you are a serious treehugger. The more grass the more photosynthesis the more byproduct: oxygen.

Sanction Brazil for cutting down the Amazon forest, largest CO2 sink in the world. Knock off all herds as animals release clouds of methane laden flatulence which damages the ionisphere.

Quit this business of syphoning off CO2.
http://www.belch.com/news/belchinglake.htm
Pump the lakes dry instead. Green the Sahara.

   

(1). Risen before when we were far less entrenched along the shores. Your point also does not take into account how much nor the far more urbanized islands that we like to vaation in.

(2) Its relevant to the people living in the turks & caicos, bahammas, bermuda, hawaii, ..... Far too many to list. Many there have no where to go.

(3) You seem to be doing what you accuse the doomsayers of doing only the opposite. You assume only benificial changes. The opposite can happen just as much. How about if the entire tropics experienced 2-3 more extra months of heavy story seasons. There are many ways things could get worse.

(4) The polar bears won't make out so well. You may be right and most of Canada experiences longer summers and milder winters but who knows what could happen. If point peele was covered with water along with its milkweed then there goes the monarch butterflies that depend on it. Again, I'm not a doomsayer but I don't think its quite so easy as saying "yeah, longer summers".

   

True and that would work perfectly if that was all a plant needs. But there are other limiting factors for growth. You need nutrients in the soil for the plants to grow and different plants need different nutrients. That's why farmers rotate their crops every year, because if they don't then you get an over depletion of particular nutrients and an abundance of others and it's difficult and expensive to have 1 type of fertilizer for each different crop. So a plant can get all the sunlight it needs and all CO2 it can take, but if there's something lacking in the soil it won't grow that much.

   

And we tied the record with 1933 for the most hurricanes on record - which begs the question: If "global warming" is to blame for this year's hurricanes then what was to blame for the hurricanes in 1933 since they predated 'global warming'?

And since the number of hurricanes this year matches 1933 then there is really nothing remarkable about this year other than that we're blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

This year's number of hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming.

   

Go somewhere else. Whistler is a neat place in the summer.



Hawaii would be relatively unaffected as it is mostly mountainous. Waikiki would be affected but that's about it. As to the rest of them, they'll need to move, won't they?



Shit happens. An asteroid could hit tomorrow and make the whole global whining argument irrelevant. Whatever happens, or doesn't happen (which is more likely in my opinion) people will adapt.



The monarch butterflies have been around a long time and they'll adapt, too. They did fine with the last ice age and the warm period before it so I'm sure they'll do fine now, too.

The polar bears will figure something out, too as bears are pretty resilient and the polar bears prospered with the end of the ice age unlike the mammoth and etc.

   

Such rosy optimism but you are basing your conclusions on even less hard scientific data then the data about Global warming that you dismiss. It works both ways. We have an equal chance of massive extinctions as animals cannot adapt to the abrupt chances that we may bring. Global warming and cooling in the past occurred over long time frames and not the speed at which we are causing it today. Many organisms simply cannot adapt fast enough.

There is as much reason to expect catastrophic changes as their is to expect beneficial changes. Regardless, the pollution (not just excess CO2) we cause is not in any way shape and form part of a natural cycle and cannot continue at present rates for the next 100 years.

BTW, In milder winters polar bear populations drop because they cannot hunt seals in the ice packs effectively. Its a very specialized niche and specialized niche feeders are very bad at adapting to sudden changes.

   

It is silly, Avro. If the overwhelming number of scientists are wrong and there is no such thing as global warming, we end up with cleaner air by listening to them. If the miniscule number of global warmer deniers is wrong and we listen to them, we bring on global catastrophe.

The economic argument against reducing emissions is a non-starter. Reducing emissions requires the development of technology. Throughout our existence, technology has created wealth, not lessened it.

The costs that will incurred by global warming include damage done by extreme weather events. We've already seen what these events look like, whether you belive they were caused by global warming or not. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, hot spells, and even cold spells, are all predicted to be more severe and more common as climate change worsens. The economic impact of that is huge.

We use oil to make all kinds of things. Once the oil is burned, it is no longer available to us. What we are doing is the equivalent of living in a tent while burning the lumber we could have built a house with. Only idiots would promote such a course of action.

   

Pointing to any single hurricane, or season of hurricanes, and ascribing it to clmiate change would be like pointing to one partiucalr smoke and saying that it is the one that gave the smoker cancer.

   

It's the same argument I've been making all along, Avro. We need emission controls...including set targets. We need to penalize polluters. We need government programs that encourage individual action (why not drop the GST and PST on insulation, energy efficient windows, hybrid cars, etc.).

Even if all of the science is dead wrong, the worst that can happen is that we create jobs, have cleaner air, and save money on our heating bills.

   

See, now that is a far better argument for controlling pollution than coming up with scary scenarios of impending doom which, frankly, bore me anymore.

Being able to see blue sky is a sufficient reason to reduce pollution.

I can agree with that.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next