i'm pretty neutral.but someone telling me this that and the other thing and thats the only proof i have. i'm not going to jump on the bandwagon.won't meet targets anyway
No glaciers = no water for many rivers
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
and that goes for both sides of the arguament.i'm not very tribal' or as some people put it brainwashed by the mainstream media 
there are a lot of theories going around,like perhaps a full blown ice age might return etc etc.take your pick.the world does not just sit around picking it's nose it changes all the time,perhaps this is one of those massive shifts that's just going to happen who really knows
you guys like stats check out how much decline in emissions if eu, north america stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow .drop in the bucket
even if it is whats causing it,life as we know it is done.just have to figure out how to live with it.
no some scandanavian enviromentalist ,but a realist
bjorn lomborg
i guess he doesn't line up with beliefs
bjorn lomborg
i guess he doesn't line up with beliefs
From what I've read, Lomborg actually believes climate change is real, but thinks we can cope with it and that we need to focus on human effects, like poverty. Critics note that he has a strong tendency to oversimplify and cherry-pick data to make his thesis. That said, I agree with the premise that the human effects are going to be enormous. Greater than many anticipate. You don't have extended droughts without causing migration. This was the spark that started the Syrian civil war.
Here's a recent quote from Lomborg:
“But we, and especially rich people who can actually afford to care about many different things, should be investing a lot more in green energy R&D. The simple point is, we’re never going to solve climate change when it requires a lot of sacrifice,” he argued, adding that ideally, he’d “love the world to do all the right stuff, but we’re happy and we’ll absolutely settle for making it slightly less wrong. So I’m hoping that I can help make the world make decisions so we are slightly less wrong. That's really where I'm getting at.”
PS: He's a political scientist, not an environmental scientist.
Here's a recent quote from Lomborg:
“But we, and especially rich people who can actually afford to care about many different things, should be investing a lot more in green energy R&D. The simple point is, we’re never going to solve climate change when it requires a lot of sacrifice,” he argued, adding that ideally, he’d “love the world to do all the right stuff, but we’re happy and we’ll absolutely settle for making it slightly less wrong. So I’m hoping that I can help make the world make decisions so we are slightly less wrong. That's really where I'm getting at.”
PS: He's a political scientist, not an environmental scientist.
never said he didn't,but seems to be a realist.people actually believe if we wave are magic green wand it's going to change the trajectory of the climate .it's not going to happen in my opinion,for what thats worth p.s tomato ,mango
p.s tomato ,mango
Some regions become less habitable and others become more habitable. The world's most expensive real estate and infrastructure are in the regions becoming less habitable. People with investments there may overreact for the rest of their lives, but it's not the end of the whole world. As the global temperature rises, the planet becomes more efficient in circulating heat, so there will be less difference between the poles and the equator. The more volatile weather period could last over a century, but I expect we will eventually come out ahead with more habitable land.
I'm happy to shovel less snow this year.
I'm happy to shovel less snow this year.
Living in the home state to Glacier National Park, I hear a fair bit of chatter about the fate of the glaciers. Most are soundbites from Parks types that at least imply that it's all about "Climate Change". A term which always seems to be followed up with "we must do SOMETHING! I don't hear folks discussing the effect of the little ice age on what many seem to like to assume was the natural state of the glaciers when the white man started poking around these parts right at the end of that 500-year period (1850 ish). Since glaciers and also the large conifer forests of the west take a hunderd or more years to respond to changes in the climate, and we just came off a 500-year cold spell, I'd have to say that I'm not surprised that the glaciers are retreating, and areas of forest are converting to grasslands. What did you think would happen? And, which state actually represents "normal"?
www.umass.edu
Winter Is Coming: Researchers Uncover the Surprising Cause of the Little Ice Age | UMass Amherst
New research from UMass Amherst provides a novel answer to one of the persistent questions in historical climatology, environmental history and the earth sciences: what caused the Little Ice Age?
www.umass.edu
acid rai n acid rain,were all going to melt.oh no the ozone layer is dissepearing,oh no global climate change .put next one here
@joop, you know that the ozone hole and acid rain were real problems, that people decided to solve, successfully, using regulations.
--scrubbers on coal plants and low sulfur coal. No more acid rain
--got rid of CFCs in aerosol cans, styrofoam, and HVAC. Ozone hole flatlines and is now closing.
When you are sick and go to the doctor, get some medicine, and then feel better, do you think you were never sick and never needed any medicine in the first place?
Did you ever have an infection that would've killed you if you hadn't had antibiotics? Maybe you felt better after popping a pill or two. Was that serious?
Global warming? Yup, we're fixing that now... renewable energy and electrification. In 2050 you can say it was all a hoax if you like.
i just find we always think it's us like were something special, that the planet can't just shrug off and swat us down.earth was a big snowball it came back no help from us .massive lava eruption wiped out almost every living thing, earth came back.
staring outside one day having a smoke,massive cloud bank floats by with some little rinkydink jetliner passed in front.put into perspective our importance in the grand scheme of things
The earth did indeed. The last snowball event kicked off the spasm of evolution that led to all the non-microscopic life we have now.
I don't believe that we can destroy the earth, nor will we humans go extinct. But we CAN destroy whole ecosystems, and cause millions of people a lot of misery. We've been doing that for centuries... and we should do what we can do to do less of that.
If your drapes are on fire, you pull them down and put them out yourself. You don't run in circles panicking. You don't call the fire department and wait 15 minutes for them while your house goes up. Similarly, we can see bad trends in the climate before they have happened, and realize that we need to do things in a different way, even if its a little inconvenient, to avoid a much bigger problem later.
And it turns out we never liked those drapes anyway.
True. And yet the amount of fossil fuels we extract and burn are measures in cubic kilometers per year. And after decades of burning that (and tilling most of the earth surface), we have increased one of the gases in the whole earth's atmosphere by 50%. And that changes the Earth's average surface temperature by 0.2% relative to 100 years ago.
And that little change is enough to melt glaciers.
i don't really find it inconvenient at all, it's part of moving forward. i don't think we are capable they way we have set things up to turn on a dime, and that seems to be what people expect.
Sure. But it was going to come sloooower on it own, which would be easier for humans and other living things to adapt to.
Wisco Shepherd
Member
This, particularly the tillage comment as our current food production model relies heavily on practices that put carbon in the air as opposed to the soil.
Same. It will happen just as fast as (most) people can make it happen. Which I think will be fast enough. Personally.
mikey
Burning Hunk
I was in high school 50 years ago that was before there was talk of climate change, but at that time my earth science teacher explained that the atmosphere could be thought of as a blanket, more co2, more methane, more water vapor and you get warmer and without these colder. as an example he described a desert in the evening and how cold it gets when there is no thick atmosphere to hold in the days heat.