Climate Change - Human Induced or Not?

[bamachem]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html


New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Monday, December 10, 2007 9:55 AM

By: Philip V. Brennan



As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.


Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.


The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.


According to Dr. Douglass: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.�


One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.


"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.�


And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.


"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere.


"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surfaceÂ* and thus the climate.


"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."




___________________________________________


Yet another valid viewpoint from renowned researchers debunking the theory of human-induced climate change... Thoughts?

[AxleIke]

Awesome.

I'm not going to bother cutting this one up.

Beers to you all for not giving a shit.

[calrockx]

I don't buy it.
Esp a link from newsmax.

[BruceTS]

finally someone has come to their senses, all this bogus talk that CO2 is causing global warming........ hahahaha

[oly884]

I'll believe in the infamous computer models, and all the trends they produce, IF then can produce models that can predict the weather/temperature in 1, 5, 10, and 20 years. If they'll be able to get within a 5% margin of error to predict the weather in those allotted times, THEN I'll believe they have a proper model. And I'm not talking about a model every year. Come up with one this year that meets these criteria for all 20 years.

However, they still have to prove to me that the very small percentage of greenhouse gases man produces is the sole cause of global warming.

By the way, how was the hurricane season this year? Come to think about it, how about last year?

For some reason, I recall reading articles about how bad the hurricane seasons were going to be due to global warming. Hmmm....

This all boils down to one thing. The day you were born was not how the world was for the last, oh, COUPLE BILLION YEARS. The idea that the climate MUST be the same as it is now is absurd and arrogant. I'm sure most global warming "experts" know that the climate changes, but they use fear tactics to get us to believe them. Things like the 28 foot rise in ocean levels <- that's a great fact*

*actually a lie

Furthermore, the idea that the climate will be changing faster is another bogus idea. The earth has been MUCH hotter and cooler than it is now. Instead of this constant bitching about the world ending JUST because the USA is emitting CO2 is sad. If the climate is going to change, let's prepare for it.

And my final point. What's the purpose of putting up sand bags on the river bank if your neighbors won't do it, and you can't afford to do it for them? <- We're all smart enough to make the analogy here, and I'd actually like a response to this.

[arjan]

If there is no climate change, then that would probably be the first time in history. Around 1600 there were very few sunspots (low sun activity) and they had a mini iceage.
During the nineties the sun was very active, solar flares actually knocking out the powergrid in eastern Canada, and we have climate temperature increases.
The sun sends a tremendous amount of energy our way, and if that increases or decreases slightly, we will notice the changes over here.

I agree with Oly, if we want to spend money, lets spend it to prepare for a warmer future. We wont be able to change it, we can prepare for certain things like rising sea levels etc.

[bamachem]

and to be fair:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316501,00.html

Scientists: 'Arctic Is Screaming,' Global Warming May Have Passed Tipping Point
Wednesday, December 12, 2007


WASHINGTON — An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.

Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming. For the past several days, government diplomats have been debating in Bali, Indonesia, the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits on these gases.

What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice.

In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute. Some regions, like Colorado, would likely get extra rain or snow.

More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised by the level of ice melt this year.

"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."

2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:

— 552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet, according to preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday. That's 15 percent more than the annual average summer melt, beating 2005's record.

— A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12 percent more than the previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of Colorado released Monday. That's nearly quadruple the amount that melted just 15 years ago. It's an amount of water that could cover Washington, D.C., a half-mile deep, researchers calculated.

— The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.

— Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice, scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004's total.

— Alaska's frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But temperature measurements 66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a degree from 2006 to 2007, according to measurements from the University of Alaska. While that may not sound like much, "it's very significant," said University of Alaska professor Vladimir Romanovsky.

- Surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean this summer were the highest in 77 years of record-keeping, with some places 8 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, according to research to be released Wednesday by University of Washington's Michael Steele.

Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted — something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades — it could add more than 22 feet to the world's sea level.

However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice sheet melt has zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of lesser years.

According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn't have been a major melt year, but it was, said Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the latest data.

"I'm quite concerned," he said. "Now I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer than the past year?"

Other new data, from a NASA satellite, measures ice volume. NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke, reviewing it and other Greenland numbers, concluded: "We are quite likely entering a new regime."

Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because they become part of a troubling spiral.

White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat off Earth, NASA's Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes into the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to more melting.

"That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models predicted."

NASA scientist James Hansen, the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming, on Thursday was to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union scientific in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data.

"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time — but it is going to require a quick turn in direction."

Last year, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington and Marika Holland at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado startled their colleagues when they predicted an Arctic free of sea ice in just a few decades. Both say they are surprised by the dramatic melt of 2007.

Bitz, unlike others at NASA, believes that "next year we'll be back to normal, but we'll be seeing big anomalies again, occurring more frequently in the future." And that normal, she said, is still a "relentless decline" in ice.

[bamachem]

OK, and here's my take:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a pollutant. However, it's much less worrisome than 99.9% of the other junk that is pumped into the atmosphere. How do we get rid of CO2? Plant more grass and trees. Green vegetation converts CO2 into oxygen via photosynthesis. If there's more trees and grass, then more CO2 can be processed.

However, we are paving land and cutting trees at record rates all over the globe. Now THAT will have a huge effect on the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere when you combine it with increased use of fossil fuels and combustion engines - even those that run on ethanol or other carbon-based fuels.

We need to get away from fossil fuels for many reasons, but going to an ethanol-based fuel will still produce carbon emissions. Ethanol is C2H5-OH. There's still carbon in there. However, by using ethanol as an energy source, we have to plant more corn and switchgrass, which in turn will pull some of that CO2 from combustion out of the atmosphere. It's much better than the current status-quo for sure.

The simple answer - there's not one.

Seriously, our planet is warmer, but is it human-induced or is it just another cyclic change? I think that we are making a very tiny and insignificant contribution to a "global warming" cycle that is actually just part of a warming trend that started after the last ice age and will continue.

Why is the evidence so dramatic now? One of the main reasons is that we finally have the technology to measure and track the data. Another reason is that we're just now reaching the artic temperatures where ice melts. Remember that Ice is still Ice at -30, -20, -10, etc until you finally get to the melting point at +32F for pure water. ONLY THEN will you see any physical changes in the properties of the Ice as it changes to Water. THAT is the primary reason in my opinion that the results are just now becoming so DRAMATIC. This has been going on for decades, and even centuries if not millenia. This is NOT new, but we are just now witnessing the PHYSICAL change as the ice melts to water. That does NOT mean that something has suddenly changed in the last 5 years. That means that the progression that the earth has made for quite some time is just now reaching the melting point after a very slow warming trend that started before we could collect the data.

Now, what makes more sense? The idea that humans could change the climate of the entire world in the matter of a few years, or that we're just witnessing something that has been going on unnoticed until we see the physical evidence - ice melting.

[randver]

don't forget the smaller a peace of ice gets the faster it melts

[bamachem]

don't forget the smaller a peace of ice gets the faster it melts


not necessarily. the rate of melting is directly proportional to the amount of heat that is absorbed. the heat can only be absorbed at the surface, so it would be logical to assume that as the size of the ice reduces, so does the surface area, and therefore the rate of melting...

[oly884]

-Andy, while I agree with you, I bite my lip when CO2 is called a "pollutant"

CO2 is a necessary compound in, with a few exceptions, every organic life form on this planet.

Also, cutting AND REPLANTING trees could actually be better for CO2 absorption than leaving tress alone. Now, I'm not condoning chopping every tree you see down. But trees are a carbon sink, when growing, then use much more carbon than a full grown tree. Think of humans, children eat more than a full grown adult because they are adding to their mass. Trees, when full grown, uptake CO2 much slower than a sapling.

I'm sure there are many discrepancies, but the general idea isn't wrong. Once again, this isn't an excuse to go chop down trees or clear cut, but the idea that we need to stop cutting down ANY trees to prevent global warming isn't the best.

[AxleIke]

don't forget the smaller a peace of ice gets the faster it melts


not necessarily. the rate of melting is directly proportional to the amount of heat that is absorbed. the heat can only be absorbed at the surface, so it would be logical to assume that as the size of the ice reduces, so does the surface area, and therefore the rate of melting...


Very true. with ice sheets, melting is accompanied by breakup, which radically increases surface area.

[neliconcept]

now i know with the ice on greenland its not actually taking up volume in water, but with the ice that is floating up near the north pole in the ocean.

with that melting, wouldnt that really decrease the volume of water in the ocean rather then increase?

[arjan]

On wikipedia it says that typically 1/9 (11%) of the iceberg is above water, when ice melts it reduces about 9% in volume (found through google).
The bigger problem is that all the oceans are warming up, and that will raise the sealevels as water expands.

[AxleIke]

Thats why ice floats. Unlike most materials, water in solid state has less density than in it's liquid state. That is why it floats. Since it has the same mass, it's volume increases.

Its why your beer explodes if you put it in the freezer.

Melting ice caps will not decrease water volume because they are localized. The ice people worry about is the ice that is currently on land.

[neliconcept]

yeah was just curious, I know greenland has like an 1/8th of the ice in the artic and its mostly all on land.

anything happening to antarctica though?

[AxleIke]

yeah was just curious, I know greenland has like an 1/8th of the ice in the artic and its mostly all on land.

anything happening to antarctica though?


Yes. Lots. Antarctica has a lot of ice on land. it is melting.

I'm going to wait and see. I save myself money by riding the bus, walking, and riding my bike. I turn of lights to save on my electricity.

I'm not going to buy a hybrid, nor stop driving my SUV. I like my SUV.

Keeping down your own personal pollution doesn't involve living in a cave. Just little stuff.

[oly884]

Bingo, saving the environment is much easier if rules and regulations are not put on people, but rather let the people govern them selves. Much like AxleIke, I turn off lights all the time, ride my 4wheeler when I can because it gets better mileage, etc. Not because the government or Mr. Gore told me to, but because I choose to. If you want to see what extreme regulation of the environment does, take a look at Yellowstone National Park and what went on there over most of the last century.

[calrockx]

Bingo, saving the environment is much easier if rules and regulations are not put on people, but rather let the people govern them selves.


That's the problem. Most people are, well, effing retarded.
Some of us get it - as far as being environmentally conscious - global warming or not. Most people just don't care, or figure "someone else will do it." So the government has to step in.

There's a law to wear a bike helmet. I don't think the law needs to step in there. If you're stupid enough to ride without one, that's just a cleaner gene pool. I'm simplifying that concept, but you get the idea. When it comes to the environment, that's something everyone shares, so I don't mind a forceful hand leading the way to promote positive change.

[oly884]

The forceful hand won't cause change, people cause change. Forcing the issue will result in rebellion against it. At what level do you suggest enforcement without tampering with our Constitutional rights?

Yes people are stupid, but do seatbelt laws keep stupid people from not wearing their seatbelts?

People WILL cause the change. If Jack, Judie, and Bobbie decide to replace their lights with CFL's and Joe comes over, you don't think that the other 3 will say how nice it is having a cheaper energy bill? And that Joe won't do it at some point?

I'm riding my 4wheeler in -10°F weather because I save money on gas. It gets 35 mpg, and is 4 stroke, so it's much more efficient than my truck. No one forced me to replace my lights or ride my quad. This doesn't mean everyone will do as I did, but the more people that do it, the more people will follow.

[calrockx]

Well, the masses won't change until 1) it's "too late", or 2) it saves them a buck.

[oly884]

Well, last I checked, being green does save a buck. In fact, quite a few bucks by what my wallet says.

[bamachem]

I agree that is will be a change in moral compass and not new regulations that will push people to be more and more green. I recycle. I am energy conscious with my home and my vehicles. I try to limit our amount of landfill use via selective purchasing. However, I won't be buying an ethanol powered vehicle unless the market trends that way out of concerns over convenience and vehicle reliability. When that happens, then I'll jump on that wagon as well.

Until then...

more to chew on:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong
Thursday, December 13, 2007

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

However, Christy was a major contributor to the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is one of the world's premier authorities on collection and analysis of satellite-derived temperature data, having been commended by both NASA and the American Meteorological Society for his efforts.

"We do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere," said Christy. "Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface."

The difference between the climate models and the satellite data has been known for several years.

Studies in 2005 found that improper compensation for temperature differences between day and night was the cause of most of the satellite-data discrepancy, a correction that Christy has accepted.

No explanation has been put forth for the weather-balloon discrepancy.

[calrockx]

http://calrockx.com/etc/_temp/deluge.jpg



http://calrockx.com/etc/_temp/new_map_of_hell.jpg

[oly884]

Not to rip on ya cal, but it's easy to link pictures, I'd prefer a discussion if you'd like to join in.

The Kyoto agreement is, in simple terms, a joke. It doesn't cover developing nations, and in essence of global warming, if it is solely caused by CO2, would have a very small effect, and that's if nations met it.

I did notice a headline in the first picture that says something on the order of, "... says it's time to adapt to warming"

I'm willing to adapt, but I'm not willing to see our (and other) economies crippled and developing nations prevented from growing due to the hands of people who "think" they know better.

As for the rest of the articles, you can do the exact same for the other side, and with every issue. There isn't a scientific consensus, plain and simple. People are not "skeptics" either, there's conflicting proof about this whole "man made global warming" argument. I have looked at both sides, and both sides are compelling. Which tells me that we don't know exactly what's going on. Hell, they can't predict the weather here in Bozeman as good as they say they can IN THE WHOLE WORLD. For the past couple nights they say it was going to dip into the single digits, Friday night they said 5°F, it really got down to about 22°F that's a 440% difference. I've seen it go the other way too, they predict it'll be in the single digits and it will drop into the NEGATIVE teens. Again, a very large margin of error.

Granted, I live in a section of the world where the weather IS very hard to predict due to the elevation, mountains, etc. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that it IS hard to predict. So, if they have a harder time being accurate over the course of a week, in one region of the world, what's to say they are 100% accurate in a much broader sense?

As I've said before, what if we acted when we thought there was global cooling in the 70's? <- Please address this question, I'd like to get a response from someone who believes that man made global warming is the sole cause of what we are seeing in weather patterns.

[calrockx]

:D

I just wanted to post up a couple posters I just designed since they sorta relate to this.
You didn't recognize me with the umbrella? haha

I'm not gonna get all into into it now, but I'll say this: I liked the movie. Overall I support the Kyoto idea, but I've read even among nations who signed themselves up for it, it's not having much the intended effect. I'd like to see the US be a part of future environmental agreements, maybe what becomes a new, improved Kyoto 2.

[AxleIke]

Well, believe this if you want:

Boss is just back from AGU (This is the HUGE Geological science annual meeting)

Basically think of it as a get together for the researchers in the geological sciences. Including the top researchers in the field of climate science.

EVERY SINGLE model of Northern hemisphere ice sheet melting was WRONG. The melting in the Northern Hemisphere was VASTLY greater than ANY of the models predicted.

That isn't theory or conjecture. Those are cold, hard data.

It is not twisted by the media, nor by the environmental dipshits. It is purely scientific research.

Now, keep in mind that this says NOTHING about the cause. Simply that global warming is REAL. I will continue to maintain that we have an effect, but I agree in that I believe we aren't COMPLETELY at fault. I do think we have a pretty large impact.

Are you all going to die? Of course not. But it is something to think about.

[AxleIke]

The Kyoto agreement is, in simple terms, a joke. It doesn't cover developing nations, and in essence of global warming, if it is solely caused by CO2, would have a very small effect, and that's if nations met it.

This is a good point. However, I would argue that we have no business dictating to a country trying to FEED itself how much pollution it can put out. I think we would be hypocritical to the extreme if we were to limit their production of food, shelter, and transportation while we guzzle oil like water and are rich beyond belief.

On the other hand, some of those nations are taking down rain forests like there is no tomorrow, so its a toss up. Not saying you are wrong, just that the developing nations issue is a tricky one.

[oly884]

Cal, I think we can agree, on some level, that the kyoto agreement isn't working as intended. I'm not opposed to the idea of a kyoto based agreement, so long as it doesn't cripple economies and lets the nations keep their sovereignty.

Axle, I do agree that the developing nations issue is a very tricky one, and I'm with you on this. A growing nation needs to do just that, grow. They have to go through the stepping stones just as we did. So, to control them is wrong. Preventing cheaper forms of electricity and fuel that could save millions of lives is sad and arrogant.

However this brings up another problem. What is the justification to impose such strict limits on a grown nation (the USA) when a "developing" nation (China) is allowed to spew pollution into the atmosphere? I made the comparison earlier,

"what good does putting up sand bags on the river bank do if your next door neighbors don't?"

The sand bags you put up won't do a damn because the water coming over the banks in your neighbors property will make it to yours.

[AxleIke]

Very good points. Can't say I have an answer for you. I agree, doing something seems pointless, but doing nothing seems wrong. Its a bit of a Catch 22.

[oly884]

Haha, I'm not suggesting the idea that we shouldn't do something. We do NEED to do something, but do you think it should be brought upon by social acceptance and common sense, or should it be brought upon by fear mongering?

Oil will run out

We get a very good portion of our oil from people who don't like us

Using oil/gas/diesel is very inefficient especially in ICE's

Using oil/gas/diesel, when burned, produces some nasty stuff (not CO2)

Transporting oil/gas/diesel clearly can cause environmental damage if split and also tends to be explosive.

So, besides those things, what other reasons do we have to move forward? A LOT of others.

We don't need to clear cut forests, but we can't leave things alone (take a look at SoCal right now, yeah, good idea for not clearing even BRUSH)

Our technology is advancing faster and faster as we take a trip around the sun, these things WILL be figured out. What drives me nuts is that instead of being logical about it, people who either have no understanding of the science of climate, alternative fuels, or other people starving on the other side of the world seem to know exactly how you and I need to live. What better way to convince us of that than to say that if we don't act like them, we're going to die.

Wait... wasn't there a story about Al Gore's mansion a while back?

Ahhh, that's right. My feeling is that IF Al, and the rest of his concert tour truly cared about the environment they wouldn't be flying jets, living in their mansions, and so on.

I'll hold MUCH more respect about someone talking about the environment if they are living in a small apt, walk/bikes to work, grows his own food, uses as little electricity as possible, the list goes on.

It doesn't take anyone special to see the hypocrisy in many of the Al Gore's of the world.

But what do I say about "how would the word get out about global warming?"

Well, I say there are plenty of other ways to travel, if necessary. But more importantly, it's not hard to use the good ol' internet to show your film for free. Because producing the movie, all the people that drove to go see it, and the energy used to show the movie I'm sure is far more than what would have been if he had produced the movie under different terms and distribute it free on the 'net.

I smell an ulterior motive, and it smells like politics.

Look, "big oil" sucks, they are screwing us from every angle (especially the not-fun ones) but there's also "big green" out there. The "big green" people are just as greedy and will use the same dirty tactics that big oil uses to get people to buy THEIR products and not believe the other side.

http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/407349.html

A prime example is ethanol. I'm not boasting here, but I smelt bullshit from the start of this ethanol business. For some reason, celebs, and many other "scientists" stated how great ethanol was and it was the solution to our energy crisis. Looks as if things are changing.

My only point here is that there's a whole bunch of crap that we don't know. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know shizzle. So, we need to realize that these "experts" don't know shizzle either. We need to make logical steps forward to keep this country on its feet, and protect our environment. On some level, we need to agree on these steps, I know we won't agree all the time, but dammit, we can't throw out people and claim they are hate mongers, and are out to destroy the environment.

We all need to sit down at the table and figure out what will work for the environment AND peoples lives.

[bamachem]

Very good points. Can't say I have an answer for you. I agree, doing something seems pointless, but doing nothing seems wrong. Its a bit of a Catch 22.


Words of wisdom, IMO.

[AxleIke]

Oly, I agree with you about 98% No time for a response now, But later. However, EXTREMELY well put.

[oly884]

and the other 2%, and with others, even 50% I'm willing to have a good discussion about what to do and compromise so we can come to a conclusion.

[patrickryanb]

Everyone knows that the earth is getting warmer. What people don't know is what is actually causing the earth to get warm. I think its very hard for people to say that 50,000 years the earth was colder/warmer than it is now. I want to ask the scientists, who was around this long ago to witness and record the temp.? I think that the earth is in a warming period. one of the normal phases of the earth's temperature. Humans have not done much to increase the temperature of the earth. I read a study one time that put things this way. If you can imagine all the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere stacked up in would be one mile tall. Man's total contribution to this mile of CO2 is only 3/4 of an inch. The same article went on to say that most of the warm air is getting trapped in the atmosphere because of water vapor (which makes up most of the atmosphere). I think more than anything it is a marketing campaign. Everyone wants to "go green". Which is good, people should reuse. But when we start handing out Nobel Peace Prizes to A person who talks about a movie....then we have problems. I thought we saved those things for the people who do the research, and come up with things like cures for cancer, or a way to chill a beer in the least amount of time. Ok time to get off the box. Just my opinion.

patrick

[calrockx]

Everyone knows that the earth is getting warmer. What people don't know is what is actually causing the earth to get warm. I think its very hard for people to say that 50,000 years the earth was colder/warmer than it is now. I want to ask the scientists, who was around this long ago to witness and record the temp.? I think that the earth is in a warming period. one of the normal phases of the earth's temperature. Humans have not done much to increase the temperature of the earth. I read a study one time that put things this way. If you can imagine all the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere stacked up in would be one mile tall. Man's total contribution to this mile of CO2 is only 3/4 of an inch. The same article went on to say that most of the warm air is getting trapped in the atmosphere because of water vapor (which makes up most of the atmosphere). I think more than anything it is a marketing campaign. Everyone wants to "go green". Which is good, people should reuse. But when we start handing out Nobel Peace Prizes to A person who talks about a movie....then we have problems. I thought we saved those things for the people who do the research, and come up with things like cures for cancer, or a way to chill a beer in the least amount of time. Ok time to get off the box. Just my opinion.

patrick


thank you for your analysis, dr. patrick.

now, um, for reality?
how do we know the temps and carbon levels from so long ago? it's easy. ice core samples give evidence. how do we know, say, dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago? no one was around.
about that co2 study, i'd love to read that. i insist, please find a link on that.

[neliconcept]

soil samples do more then ice, for one ice only entraps like 4% gas anyways.

[DHC6twinotter]

Some scientists think we may be on the verge of another Little Ice Age:
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Anot her+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

Has a tid bit in there about the earth's temperature being on a decline since 1998. Interesting read nontheless.

Personally, I don't think humans have made as huge an impact as some people (and media) seem to suggest. IMHO, it's just one of those cycles the earth goes through, and I think the whole thing has just been blown out of proportion. For all I know, 10 years from now, the media might be having a field day about a "Ice Age", and somebody is going to go out and write a book and win the Noble Peace Prize over it.

That being said, I just say let nature take its course, and do our best to make the planet a healthier place to live. I grew up in a large city in a third world country and know what it is like to live in a very polluted place. I'm very thankfull for what the US and other modernized countries have done to help pollution problems and the environment, but lets just not blow the whole thing out of proportion. IMHO, there are many issues that are a lot more important.

Just my $.02. :D

[neliconcept]

now saying our temperature has been on a decline since 1998 is retarded

its been on a decline for at least a hundred years or more.

[arjan]

I've always found the sun activity theory far more plausible then the CO2 theory as the cause for global warming.
I don't belief that we cause global warming to that extend. People like to think they can control things, but certain things are just out of reach for us. Climate is one of them imo.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't pollute anymore than we have to, we should look after the place we live in.

Billions of dollars are better spend on preparing for a warmer climate then trying to prevent it imo.

[fustercluck]

When the earth's climate reaches the ability to spontaneously melt chocolate in the shade, I'll know we are doomed.

[BruceTS]

When the earth's climate reaches the ability to spontaneously melt chocolate in the shade, I'll know we are doomed.



I guess we are doomed! To keep chocolate from melting you have to keep it in the fridge in my area....

[MTL_4runner]

I think everyone would like to know the cause (sunspots, CO2, etc), but something is clearly different now than it has been in the past. I just saw a PBS show on Polar Bears and essentially they said what was making it tough for them was that they used to only have to swim 50 miles to make it from the artic to the top of mainland Canada, but today they need to do a marathon swim over 200 miles to reach the same destination. If you combine that with more violent artic storms which can drown them at sea, alot fewer will make it each year.

Food for thought anyway.

[arjan]

But then I read this on CBC today, the current cold snap is increasing the amount of seaice.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html