julianalexander745
Active Member
Per year? If so, that seems low.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is all this recent Climate Change stuff pure hysteria?
- Thread starter julianalexander745
- Start date
Per year? If so, that seems low.
The me too movement isn't science.
Global warming is testable, observable and is the expected, predictable outcome of the measurable increase in atmospheric carbon accumulation.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Depends what you mean by "apocalyptic". By mid-century, i.e. in your lifetime, there are expected to be major effects.
But we are already seeing effects today. Here is an article on the insurance industry, which is having to adapt to the increased level of payouts for weather-related damage and is trying to plan how to cope in the future. Insurance in a Climate of Change
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What's rather sad and pathetic is how many people actually believe that fossil fuel lobbyists and their puppet politicians are more honest and trustworthy than the international scientific community, as if it's the latter who hide a dishonest agenda and who have something to gain by deceiving the public.
Are you expecting someone to deliver a pre-digested PhD in an RF post?
Tom
julianalexander745
Active Member
How did you infer that?
Not for the dead people or their dependents
And next year, and the next and the next if increases, by 2030 its an estimated 250000.
And only a couple of days a go a report was launched on how the impact of climate change is being underestimated
The missing economic risks in assessments of climate change impacts - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
exchemist
Veteran Member
It's right there. If you want to know what they all agree on it'll take some work on your part.
Tom
There are basically two major uncertainties in projecting the future of climate change. The first one is what we, the human race do, and how fast we reduce our emissions or if we continue on a "business-as-usual" path.
The second is the sensitivity of global temperatures to changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is a major source of uncertainty in climate modelling, but the biggest concern is that we introduce "positive" feedback effects which take the course of climate change out of human control. One basic example is that as the polar ice caps melt, that reduce the amount of the sun's energy that is reflect out in to space and is instead absorbed by the earth's surface. So the world's surface absorbs more solar radiation and hence there is more "energy" in the climate system, raising global temperatures.
Timelines for this are therefore based on probabilities, and predictions don't extend beyond 2100. My understanding is that scientists are ruling out the lower ranges of these projections, because we aren't reducing our emissions fast enough and the data suggests a high sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions, so projections are now anticipating increases in the higher temperature ranges with more serious consequences for the future of the planet and humanity.
(edit: In laymen's terms, we should go beyond the 2 degree threshold considered "safe", admittedly dubiously by the middle of the century and hit maybe 3 or 4 degrees by 2100)
julianalexander745
Active Member
The world's smallest violin is playing.
julianalexander745
Active Member
Yep, science; not all scientists though, necessarily, pal.
Do you have anything to offer other than inane comments?
julianalexander745
Active Member
I like to think so.
We're all waiting. Perhaps you could start by answering my question:
What scientific bodies would you hold to be most credible on the issue?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Relevance?
It's already happening, and the effects are accelerating. Have you been reading the news?
So you think this is a conspiracy; that all these millions of unrelated researchers in dozens of different disciplines are all in cahoots? With whom? To whose benefit?
I agree that there is an element of conspiracy, but the "corporate and political entities" are paying off the climate deniers, not the unaffiliated scientists reporting the effects within their own areas of study. The conspiracy is in the denial.
exchemist
Veteran Member
If you learned about this in primary school, you did not learn about it "in great scientific detail". Have you made any attempt to learn more subsequently?
