Global Warming Sucks

[finnbow]

"Global Warming" is an unfortunate moniker, because it allows its detractors to muddy the waters by confusing weather and climate. "Global climate change" would be better and certainly seems to describe what's happening with the recent snow storm and the huge cyclone in Queensland.

What I've been reading is that the slight changes in climate end up putting lots more energy into the global climate system and increasing the severity and frequency of storms.

I suppose the question remains how much you have to spend to make any meaningful difference in the long run and is this money perhaps better spent elsewhere (e.g., disease prevention, clean water, etc.)? I don't have the answer for that one.

[mossbacked]

The way most of you here want to design the system, we better all pray for climate change so somehow it averages about 73 degrees, year-round, everywhere on the planet. Then we can all be comfortable living in our mud hut, and growing our own food and natural fiber for clothing.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by mossbacked

The way most of you here want to design the system, we better all pray for climate change so somehow it averages about 73 degrees, year-round, everywhere on the planet. Then we can all be comfortable living in our mud hut, and growing our own food and natural fiber for clothing.

Everywhere on the planet? Growing food ain't gonna work well underwater.

[doucanoe]

Yes, I believe we moved away from "Global Warming" to "Experiencing Climate Change" some time ago. Use of Climate Change had less of a Al Gore - Earth in the Balance feel to it.

Al is so yesterday.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by mossbacked

The way most of you here want to design the system, we better all pray for climate change so somehow it averages about 73 degrees, year-round, everywhere on the planet. Then we can all be comfortable living in our mud hut, and growing our own food and natural fiber for clothing.

And the way you would have it, we'd all just laugh at it and "yammer" on about what bullshit it is until the planet dries up and we all drop dead.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by mossbacked

The way most of you here want to design the system, we better all pray for climate change so somehow it averages about 73 degrees, year-round, everywhere on the planet. Then we can all be comfortable living in our mud hut, and growing our own food and natural fiber for clothing.

ROTFLMAO! Dude, pass the hemp cloth, I need to make another man purse!

Pete

[Charles]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Yes, I believe we moved away from "Global Warming" to "Experiencing Climate Change" some time ago. Use of Climate Change had less of a Al Gore - Earth in the Balance feel to it.

Al is so yesterday.

You're just jealous because you don't have a Nobel AND an Oscar.

I'm jealous because I don't have a 2,000 SF houseboat with biofuel marine diesels. It's difficult for me to save the world in my 17 footer.

Chas

[merrylander]

I am just waiting until we become an ocean front property then I will sell.

[piece-itpete]

And surfing in Cleveland! Whoo hoo!

I recently saw a report that said Cleveland, Detroit, and Baltimore stand to benifit most from increased global temps

Pete

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by finnbow

"Global Warming" is an unfortunate moniker, because it allows its detractors to muddy the waters by confusing weather and climate. "Global climate change" would be better and certainly seems to describe what's happening with the recent snow storm and the huge cyclone in Queensland.

What I've been reading is that the slight changes in climate end up putting lots more energy into the global climate system and increasing the severity and frequency of storms.

I suppose the question remains how much you have to spend to make any meaningful difference in the long run and is this money perhaps better spent elsewhere (e.g., disease prevention, clean water, etc.)? I don't have the answer for that one.

For what it's worth I think it's important to try to establish whether the climate is changing long term, or whether it's the kind of short term blip that resulted in ice fairs on the Thames.

If the former, we have to try to figure out without political loading either way whether we're causing it or not. If we are, we have to stop doing what we were doing, cross our fingers and hope. If the latter, crossing our fingers and hoping might still be a good idea, but so would working out how best to try to deal with the consequences. Do we take the Dutch approach and build embankments so that ground below sea-level can still be cultivated? Or do we think long term and recognise that a lot of the lowlands will be gone.

Long ago Britain was literally part of Europe. Now, either by the sea rising or the land level falling, we're an island.