One is a debate with a T-Rex.
The other offers some suggestions on what we should do about climate change.
Tell me what you think here!
![Thinking :?:](./images/smilies/emoticon-0138-thinking.gif)
I used to believe that too, and that makes sense. However, then I started investigating our past climate changes and trying to understand why they occurred. That's when I learned the bad news: we don't know why it occurred.ben wrote:okay, i'll bite. it's been a while since i read your piece on climate change, but one thing you said has been nagging me. you mentioned that because we're so bad at predicting the weather over the course of the next few days (will it rain, will it be sunny, will the hurricane make landfall), we shouldn't trust people who claim to be able to predict what the weather will be like in 50-100 years. i think that's misleading. it seems to me it would be much easier to predict broad trends, like climate change, than to predict the details, like how much it's going to rain tomorrow.
ben
ben wrote: i enjoyed reading your piece, was a little annoyed at some of it, but enjoyed it. i was glad to see your follow up piece in which you said that just because climate change might ultimately improve biodiversity planet-wide, that's no reason to hope and pray for, or heaven-forbid deliberately further, climate change.
ben
ben wrote: i realize there are lots of different climates for this planet to choose, but we were born into this one and i think we'd be well served to try to maintain it to the best of our abilities.
ben
Agreed!!! I apologize if that didn't come across in my reply to Ben. Because I take unconventional positions, I expect many people to disagree with me. I welcome criticisms, because it sharpens my thinking.Brennan wrote:First off, I would like to say that I really liked what Ben had to say. He got his point across while still staying open minded, which is what a discussion board is all about.
You're right that I'm being somewhat hypocritical by making a climate predicition after saying that climate is hard to predict. Let me clarify:Brennan wrote: Secondly, Francis... well, you definitely have your convictions, which is good, but your stubbornness is causing you to contradict yourself. How can you say we can't predict broad trends, and then you yourself predict broad trends in your 'Human vs. T-Rex' dialogue. The T-Rex comments that "we are due for another cooling". This seems like a climate change forecast to me. Perhaps you're just playing the devils advocate, which is fine. Ultimately, you both made valid points.
Brennan wrote:Personally I would just like to say that we need to reduce our carbon output for two different reasons.
1. So that the U.S. economy isn't controlled by gas prices.
2. I've lived in Colorado for 20 years, and every year the smog gets worse. I just want to see the mountains again!
This is exactly what T. Rex mentioned in my Dino Debate on Climate Change when he said: "It’s been 10,000 years since the last glacial period and 18,000 years have passed since the last maximum, so we are due for another cooling.""Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it," Science Daily reported.
Fiona, has climate change ever NOT happened?fmclean wrote:Well, given this news from the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377128.stm, it turns out that the claims that temperatures haven't been rising were in fact wrong (sometimes even the BBC makes mistakes).
Predicting climate change is only vague in as much as they don't know what the exact effects will be, nor can they pinpoint exactly where they will be felt. Whether or not climate change will happen is no longer a prediction; it will happen and already is happening.
You make a great point. Climate will CHANGE. That means for some it will change for the worse, for others it will change for the better.The general public doesn't really understand the concept of global warming, so when they hear that global average temperatures will increase by 2C degrees (or 4C or 6C or whatever), they just assume that across the board everywhere will get warmer by 2C degrees. However, that is not at all the case. Some places will get colder, some hotter, some wetter, some drier. In some places the temperature difference might be more like 6C or 8C - or as much as 10C or as little as 0.5C - even though the global average change is 2C. There will also be more extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, freak snowstorms in summer, temperatures above 20C in the winter, excessively heavy rainfall in short periods of time, i.e. last week in Cumbria in Northern England where record rainfall caused flooding with water levels reaching over 2.5 metres (8ft 2in). So although the projected increases in temperature don't sound like much, the local and regional consequences could/will actually be quite significant.
Perhaps, but my main point is that it's not a very interesting term. Such a prediction is like saying "I predict the sun will rise tomorrow."Contrary to what you have previously suggested, calling it "climate change" is not a cop-out, nor is it a matter of hesitancy, keeping things vague, or trying to ensure that they are right regardless of what happens.