论坛

Kunming weather

vicar (817 posts) • +1

In my opinion in answer to Alien's question, climates change and always have done, even before man. This leads me to the conlcusion that it is the sun and the changing orbit of the earth which affect the climate most of all and therefore man's part in it is insignificant in the whole scale of things.
I sometimes find looking at the origions of words quite interesting and when I looked up 'climate' I came across these 2 intriguiging sources if you have a moment.

n.
late 14c., "horizontal zone of the earth," Scottish, from Old French climat "region, part of the earth," from Latin clima (genitive climatis) "region; slope of the Earth," from Greek klima "region, zone," literally "an inclination, slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from root of klinein "to slope, to lean" (see lean (v.)).

The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers. Early references in English, however, are in astrology works, as each of the seven (then) climates was held to be under the influence of one of the planets. Shift from "region" to "weather associated with a region" perhaps began in Middle English, certainly by c.1600.
(Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper)

The general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind. On Earth, climate is MOST AFFECTED BY the latitude, the tilt of the Earth's axis, the movements of the Earth's wind belts, the difference in temperatures of land and sea, and topography. Human activity, especially relating to actions relating to the depletion of the ozone layer, is also an important factor.
(The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin).

I like to add here that the ozone is currently healing

Alien (3819 posts) • -1

Vicar: Your logic does not establish 'therefore insignificant' in the present period, which the planet has not had before. Granted, the factors you mention have been important and still are, as every climatologist knows, no doubt better than you and I. Yet most climatologists still maintain that the human species has been screwing up the climate.
Explain.

vicar (817 posts) • +2

I'd go so far as to say that humans 'affect' the climate minusculey, but definsteely not screwing it up. damaging the ozone layer I would call screwing mankind up. The reason the ozone is healing is because it was discovered to be a significant global threat - death by sun. If you take into consideration the size of space, earth, oceans and sun you would see what I mean about the causes of climate change. More extreme weather than recent has been recorded over the centuries. Do you think if we all stopped using fossils fuels tomorrow the climate would stay the same forever or something? I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. Explain and I'll get back to you.

Alien (3819 posts) • -1

No, the climate won't stay the same forever, regardless. I'm coming from acceptance of the general scientific findings of the great majority of climatologists, who think our continuing use of fossil fuels is going to lead to, and probably already has begun to lead to, serious trouble, and that whatever other climatological factors may or may not be involved, continuing use will lead to greater problems, some of which may arrive rather suddenly.

Geezer (1953 posts) • +1

Actually, climate has been changing for billions of years. Since the last ice age ended a little over 10,000 years ago, there have been three periods of warming and a "Little Ice Age" before the current warming period.

These earlier warm periods occurred before the industrial age and no one seems to blame humans for them

End of last Ice Age

About 10,000 years ago

Holocene Climate Optimum

9,000 to 5,000 years ago

above 16 degrees C

Roman Climate Optimum

from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD about 15.9 degrees C

Medieval warm period

950 AD to 1250 AD

about 15.6 degrees C

Little Ice age

about 1300 AD to about 1850

Modern warm period

Began about 1850

almost 13 degrees C

JanJal (1244 posts) • -1

Earth was a lifeless rock in the beginning. It would take a

creationist (confused at that) or IQ of a cow to need scientists to tell that "climate changes also naturally". That is an obsolote comment if any.

Nobody to be taken seriously is going to deny that climate does change naturally.

The argument is not about that.

The argument is that human induced addition (if there is any)

to possible natural climate change makes the overall change happen too fast and unexpected. It does not give the life on Earth the same time to adapt, that it had in past changes.

Grarnted, some changes also in past happened pretty fast, and caused massive extinctions. Humans (most anyway), unlike animals, are not ready to accept such extinctions. Blame it on the bigger brain, anatomy of the thumb of whatever.

Humans cannot much prevent natural climate change from happening (safely anyway), so only thing we can can do is to try to reduce the part that we cause ourselves.

If fossil fuels are considered the biggest contributor that humans have to climate change, there is also argument that fossil fuel usage should be reduced so that future generations have fossil fuels to use, at least for the most critical needs.

Climate may change at some speed regardless, but if fossil fuels start to run out even with all new technologies (and they will), then that change to human culture will happen even faster.

fixitwithahammer (165 posts) • +1

Climate change is real. There are numbers out and facts about glacier and ice decline, that have never happened before.

Also it's just simple mathematics. That much emmissions and the capacity of earth to process it. Add the delay in effects and the earth climate being linked. I would say even for people doubting it before, it's hard to deny.

I think what many scientists warn about is that if a new calamity hits earth, that the climate would collapse under the double load.

Before when a meteor or volcano screwed up the climate, it was bad enough but now we also added our crap to good old mother earth. And it could lead to an overkill turning our planet into a hell like mars after critical mass is reached.

michael2015 (784 posts) • -4
Comment hidden by user downvote 点击展开更多

I've noticed that science is increasingly "decision-based" data - data is cherry picked to support decisions, as opposed to data-based decisions - which suffers from insufficient data.

So although I agree and support the need to at least environmentally neutral (zero carbon?) and more parasympathetic as opposed to parasitic - I'm highly suspicious of alleged "science" as it tends to be more economically self-serving (grants, subsidies, etc) or politically self-serving in implementation.

The US EPA was an epic example of failed science - working with companies to migrate them towards environmentally sustainable behavior as opposed to their general behavior of an arrogant, oppressive, heavy handed hammer.

Most environmental disasters in the USA (the latest - the Flint Michigan water issue) all happened under the EPA's negligent watch.

I actually contacted several EPA agencies last year to inquire about US companies involved in sustainable water management projects - got the usual and typical bureaucratic run-around - which means nobody knows and nobody cares.

So - in the USA - EPA - political rhetoric more focused on writing laws, policies, and procedures than actual implementation.

On that note - the EPA is an excellent resource for environmental data, studies, research, etc - but falls short on non-governmental implementation - which means their programs are highly dependent on government grants, funds, and other sources of taxpayer financed expenditures.

No surprise to me the rank and file taxpayers elected Trump.

Related forum threads

Login to post