After the Stern report from last year, when Nicholas Stern outlined that the costs of not addressing climate change were going to outweight the costs of taking action its hardly surprising to come across something like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1829554.htm

In addition, in the last week or so I have spoken to people from several small Island nations including Kiribati and the Seychelles. These nations rely heavily on tourism ... but with beaches being washed away the future looks grim. Thjis is especially the case in Kiribati, which is a coral atoll. sea walls won't protect the island at all.

There is also the impact of coral bleaching, damaging the reefs and affecting the tourist experience - but more importantly affecting the marine ecosystem and food supplies.

Personally I don't believe we can stop GW - but I think we need to think about strategies as to how we deal with it.

It sounds awful for some places. However, ski resorts in the US are packed. The season is setting records making getting a room difficult to find.

__________________
United We Stand.

I was just reading this in California.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=23441

In Europe it's a nightmare for people whose income come from the white gold.
Almost all the ski resorts are closed in the Pyrenees, in the Alps, the snow quality - if there is some snow - is very bad, close to what we usually have in late april.
Yesterday the temperature in Bordeaux was 17°C (62.5F), whereas it should be around 7° (44.5F), and it has been like this since the beginning of january.

Two webcams of Villard de Lans, in the french Alps :




However, the weather forecasts announce cold temperature for next week

Maybe hiking and backpacking could be introduced to offset the lack of snow. Utah and Colorado are packed with skiers. There is already so much snow they should be skiing until May or June. Anyway, the bitter cold has affected the US all the way south to the Alamo.Texas is not prepared for blizzards and Texas also risks loosing citrus crops like the one billion lost in California. Pretty soon they will be skiing in L.A. between the dead palm trees.

__________________
United We Stand.

Climate is NOT about records. Its about long term averages.

Try convincing those who are suffering temperatures that are breaking 100 year cold record readings, 100,000 of jobs lost and over $1 billion in citrus are destroyed.While you may need some 'long term average' to prove your Political Weather Agenda for Environmental Justice, there are going to be higher prices for fruit, thousand out of work, devastated crops that have no value, and losses that continue to pile up all thanks to psuedo Global Warming.

Would someone turn on the heat already? I thought that humans supposedly controlled the weather.

__________________
United We Stand.

THAT was my point, the OP began the thread by talking about isolated incidents as proof to her claim of global warming. I responded by posting an individual incident that runs counter to her claim, thus attempting to demonstrate that individual incidents are not indicitive of the existence or nonexistence of global warming.

Yes I do not support that stance to take a single winter for example and use alone this as argument in regard to climatic issues. Its the sum of all events of a longer period, lets say for example a decade.


Global warming is however not disputed in the vast majority of the scientific community. Its reallity.

What is disputed might be the exact reasons for it and even more, what it will result in + what to do now.

If the reasons for global warming are undecided (disputed) how can we do anything about it now if we can't agree on what causes it.

Well, I start to check the basics here. It seems you do not contest than that there is a climatic change ongoing. Right?

You make a point: What to do?

Thats where discussing the reasons come in. And factually we have there several theories that try to explain it. Some of them are supported by a large majority.

Some are pretty for sure. Like for example that the rise in CO2 is human made to the largest share. No sane person would seriously contest this. Its furthermore proven that CO2 effects the warming.

How much? The majority of scientist says signficantly. But of course as its very hard to prove that in a water tight manner (actually that will not be possible before its too late) you always will get the counter studies of those who dont like the conclusions one would have to take out of that.

Anyone who disagrees is not insane.

__________________
United We Stand.

Perhaps to reduce their contributions of CO2 to the environment humans should stop breathing then since it creates CO2. I think many sane people would contest the belief that humans are to blame for global warming.

There is no evidence that water vapor has increased signficantly in the last century. CO2 has, stayed for 850 years around the 1850 level. But afterwards it started to rocket. Weird coincidence. Isnt it?

Human breath is insignificant quantitatively.
Human made CO2 is not. I might weaken my comment above however. Its controversial how large the share of human made CO2 is. But its not controversial at all that Global warming takes place. Its not controversial that the alpine ski resorts will face severe problems in the future.

There was a study published just recently that estimated the effects of global warming and it came to a disastrous outcome for Europe.

I did not say that humans are to blame completely for the process of global warming. But we enforce it recognizable. And we should soon know what to do against it.