NationStates Jolt Archive

Is global warming your problem? If it is, should you try and do something about it? Please answer honestly in the poll, because I want to know how many people truly care.

Today, I was talking to a friend, and I asked her if she would like to go see "An Inconvenient Truth" with me. She said she would go if she had to, but she had no interest in it. This was followed by the title statement: "Global warming is not my problem." She went on to say. "I don't care the world is getting screwed up. It's not like it's going to explode while I'm alive. Why should I care?" Recently she has been getting on my nerves, and what little respect I had left for her evaporated. This is a girl whose goal in life is to have and raise children. As much as I find that goal pointless, I have not held it against her. Yet, what she said about global warming not being her problem, it's in full contradiction with her goal. If her life revolves around her possible future children, shouldn't she care that she's condemning them to a hellish life? Now, this is someone who believes global warming is real, but just doesn't care. I guess you learn something new everyday.

It will be everyone's problem eventually. And I try to do my part to prevent it. So far, its been to no avail.

I believe Global Warming is real, but I hardily believe its going to result in anything remotely “Hellish.”
Prophets of doom have never been right before, I don’t know why I should start listening to them now.

I live on Earth, and I kind of want to live a long time (preferably forever, but I'm shooting for at least 100 right now), so it is most definitely my problem. I couldn't care less about future generations, but I do know that global warming is really, really bad for me. Selfish? Perhaps, but ultimately it achieves the same end as a person who does it for the good of humanity.

I concern myself with global warming because it affects me and could be a wall to the goals I want to achieve. And since I plan to be here a while, it's going to affect me for as long as I exist.

Yet, what she said about global warming not being her problem, it's in full contradiction with her goal. If her life revolves around her possible future children, shouldn't she care that she's condemning them to a hellish life? Now, this is someone who believes global warming is real, but just doesn't care. I guess you learn something new everyday.

People never make sense. Hardly surprising that she would pass the worlds problems on to her kids. Why deal with it now? That would mean getting off your butt and doing something about it yourself.

We'll adapt and survive. It's not going to go away; it's best to just learn to live with it.

I help the environment by not being very much of a consumer. Although that's as much to do with the fact that 90% of what one can buy (anywhere) is utter crap as it is to do with fear of environmental destruction.

We'll adapt and survive. It's not going to go away; it's best to just learn to live with it.

But surely it's wise to attempt to minimise the ill effects before it gets so bad "adapt and survive" is all we can do?

But surely it's wise to attempt to minimise the ill effects before it gets so bad "adapt and survive" is all we can do?

I'd really rather have 100 or 200 years to "adapt and survive" rather than 50. It kind of helps to have a manageable timeframe when it comes to these things.

I believe Global Warming is real, but I hardily believe its going to result in anything remotely “Hellish.”
Prophets of doom have never been right before, I don’t know why I should start listening to them now.

Thats what I believe too. It also bothers me how a new "real cause" comes out like a gazette every month.

Thats what I believe too. It also bothers me how a new "real cause" comes out like a gazette every month.
Especially when there are far more pressing problems out there that concern human beings here and now.

We have an entire underclass of inner city dwellers, but people think they can absolve themselves of all their social responsibilities by recycling and driving hybrids.

But surely it's wise to attempt to minimise the ill effects before it gets so bad "adapt and survive" is all we can do?

Indeed,we shouldn't just assume "Ah feckit,we can deal with it" and let it get worse.There's a chance we could be wrong,and the effects of global warming COULD be hellish.
But on the flipside it could be absolutely nothing,but who can honestly take that risk?

But surely it's wise to attempt to minimise the ill effects before it gets so bad "adapt and survive" is all we can do?

All we're doing at the moment is eeking out the remaining supplies. Best to just get rid of them at once.

I assure you that nothing will inspire people to come up with a solution to our reliance on fossil fuels more than if we ran out of them.

I assure you that nothing will inspire people to come up with a solution to our reliance on fossil fuels more than if we ran out of them.

That's a lot sooner than most people think; oil will peak within the next 15 years, and natural gas most likely a decade or two later. That leaves coal, which will run out damn quick if we construct a huge number of coal power plants to replace natural gas.

Chances are, fossil fuels will be in complete terminal decline by 2050.

Global warming is real. Anybody who disputes that is ill-informed - the basic science behind the principle is sound.

Global warming is my problem. Well actually it's not, not at the moment anyway. I enjoyed our Med weather this summer - sitting outside the beautiful local pub each lunchtime with my colleagues and friends and a nice cold drink, in the blazing sunshine, was brilliant. Hope it happens next year! Of course even a small change in the global temperature can have disasterous consequences, but I may as well enjoy the good side while I can.

What I disagree with, however, is the cause behind it. Humans have a common trait, across all cultures and peoples, and that trait is arrogance. We believe that we are single-handedly destroying the planet through the sheer power of our amazing technology. Well I don't think that's it. Certainly we are having an impact, but, not enough to cause global disaster. I believe that nature itself has a part in it. A much greater part than we do.

Am I doing something to stop it? I don't believe we have any control over it. That doesn't mean that I don't think a cleaner atmosphere is a good thing though - nor am I against the prospect of cheaper petrol and electric bills! I don't want my small country to become innundated with landfills either. So yeah, I turn off the lights when I'm not around, I go for more fuel-efficient cars over gas guzzling monstrosities, I walk or run whenever I can (for my own good as much as that of the planet), I recycle, buy biodegradable products wherever possible... and all that other jazz. My reasons are different than many though. I just don't want our planet to become a smelly pile of junk!

All we're doing at the moment is eeking out the remaining supplies. Best to just get rid of them at once.

I assure you that nothing will inspire people to come up with a solution to our reliance on fossil fuels more than if we ran out of them.

Unfortunately that's true.America is so wound up about it's enormous economy they wouldn't dare give up the fossil fuels that are pumping it full of money and jobs.

Global warming is probably my problem as well but I just can’t be arsed sadly (that and more important things are afoot)

Unfortunately that's true.America is so wound up about it's enormous economy they wouldn't dare give up the fossil fuels that are pumping it full of money and jobs.

It's not just us, it's the entire world. There is no nation on Earth that is not dependent on fossil fuels for some aspect of its economy. The more developed you are, the more dependent you are.

Thankfully, however, those same developed economies are more capable of developing alternatives as well.

Even if we cut emissions down to nil, it will still happen. We began global warming around 11,000 yrs ago. We not we as in humans, but the earth began a new period of it since then. Of course there has been a few small recessions in it, but it naturally a part of earth's cycle. Of course, we are only helping it get here faster, and I'd not like that to happen, but if it does, then I suppose we will have to deal with it then.

On a side note, I've always loved the fact that global warming will inevitable lead to a glaciation age. Kind of ironic, eh?

Even if we cut emissions down to nil, it will still happen.
Actually, no it won't. The Earth should be entering a cooling period. Slashing emissions to nil will likely result in a short period of warming, as the greenhouse gases are removed, but it should taper off before catastrophic results occur. Unfortunately, we only have about two decades to drastically slash emissions before the greenhouse gas levels are too high.

It's not just us, it's the entire world. There is no nation on Earth that is not dependent on fossil fuels for some aspect of its economy. The more developed you are, the more dependent you are.

Add to the fact that the more developed you are, the more Greenpeace nutters you attract, with their wonderful 'logic' that we must both reduce fossil fuel use but ban nuclear power use.

I suppose it's very easy to complain about things; much more difficult to take hard, realistic decisions about what can be done.

Global warming is real. Anybody who disputes that is ill-informed - the basic science behind the principle is sound.

Global warming is my problem. Well actually it's not, not at the moment anyway. I enjoyed our Med weather this summer - sitting outside the beautiful local pub each lunchtime with my colleagues and friends and a nice cold drink, in the blazing sunshine, was brilliant. Hope it happens next year! Of course even a small change in the global temperature can have disasterous consequences, but I may as well enjoy the good side while I can.

What I disagree with, however, is the cause behind it. Humans have a common trait, across all cultures and peoples, and that trait is arrogance. We believe that we are single-handedly destroying the planet through the sheer power of our amazing technology. Well I don't think that's it. Certainly we are having an impact, but, not enough to cause global disaster. I believe that nature itself has a part in it. A much greater part than we do.

Am I doing something to stop it? I don't believe we have any control over it. That doesn't mean that I don't think a cleaner atmosphere is a good thing though - nor am I against the prospect of cheaper petrol and electric bills! I don't want my small country to become innundated with landfills either. So yeah, I turn off the lights when I'm not around, I go for more fuel-efficient cars over gas guzzling monstrosities, I walk or run whenever I can (for my own good as much as that of the planet), I recycle, buy biodegradable products wherever possible... and all that other jazz. My reasons are different than many though. I just don't want our planet to become a smelly pile of junk!

QFT

Add to the fact that the more developed you are, the more Greenpeace nutters you attract, with their wonderful 'logic' that we must both reduce fossil fuel use but ban nuclear power use.

Greenpeace supports the use of nuclear power.

Greenpeace supports the use of nuclear power.

This is news to me. News to them too, it seems.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?SitekeyParam=D-E&CFID=6162502&CFTOKEN=91343913&MenuPoint=D

Add to the fact that the more developed you are, the more Greenpeace nutters you attract, with their wonderful 'logic' that we must both reduce fossil fuel use but ban nuclear power use.

Yeah, or the NIMBY types that don't want to build nuclear plants or wind turbines because they block their view. No matter that they are driving SUVs that waste huge amounts of oil, but since those polluting refineries are dumped on poor communities it doesn't matter, right?

No offense to them, but I like having a cheap and steady supply of electricity. I'd rather take the extremely low, nearly nonexistent risk of nuclear accident and solve the problem of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels while still keeping my lights on. I think having technology and lights is a good thing, and I don't plant to give them up.

And I live within 5 miles of a nuclear plant, btw.

I suppose it's very easy to complain about things; much more difficult to take hard, realistic decisions about what can be done.

Oh yeah, definitely. Once I can afford a house, I'm going to do everything I can to minimize my emissions; a hybrid car, solar panels, you name it. Right now, all I can do is conserve power, walk everywhere, and reduce my usage of hot water or turn down the thermostat but it's a step in the right direction. Especially considering my dorm is from the 60's, when people saw fossil energy as a bottomless pit of repercussion-free abundance.

I like my globe like I like my cookies: Warm and gooey. :)

It's not my problem.

The marginal impact I can make on global warming is negligible, so I have no incentive to do anything at all.

I like my globe like I like my cookies: Warm and gooey. :)

Yeah, but what if desertification drastically cuts the supply of mud? The effects could be catastrophic...

This is news to me. News to them too, it seems.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?SitekeyParam=D-E&CFID=6162502&CFTOKEN=91343913&MenuPoint=D

One of the high-ranking members recently came out in favor of it. Don't recall who. Maybe it isn't official policy.

Yeah, but what if desertification drastically cuts the supply of mud? The effects could be catastrophic...

:eek: Don't even speak of such horrors! :eek:

Either people become more efficient, protect the environment and help technology in the long term or they die out from their own stupidity. Frankly, I can't help feeling like I win either way.

I think the idea that you won't support measures to counter global warming because we're not dead yet when doomsayers of the past said that we would be is ridiculous. Sometimes I think of measures actually being taken and that the more severe effects of global warming are averted. Then I think of people of the future who will talk about the changes that were put forth by these "doomsayers" and how they will comment, "Look how wrong they were. We're not dead yet."

:eek: Don't even speak of such horrors! :eek:

Search your feelings, you know this to be true! :eek:

I think the thing about the climate change dilemma is that it requires a global effort. I think regardless of whether you believe we can make a significant difference, the benifits for global awarness of at least trying to make a diiference could be huge.

The idea that people could unite to achieve something is such a powerful idea. At the moment the gap between the haves and have nots is growing wider and wider, faster and faster and it seems insurmountable to most people.

A global crisis offers a really rewarding path for people to come together over a common goal.. rather than fight over their pretty minimal differences.

Kinna sacarine sweet I know.. but its a nice idea anyway. That something really good could come from something potentially really bad.

I think the thing about the climate change dilemma is that it requires a global effort. I think regardless of whether you believe we can make a significant difference, the benifits for global awarness of at least trying to make a diiference could be huge.

The idea that people could unite to achieve something is such a powerful idea. At the moment the gap between the haves and have nots is growing wider and wider, faster and faster and it seems insurmountable to most people.

A global crisis offers a really rewarding path for people to come together over a common goal.
Really, and how long have you been a 9 year old girl?

Add to the fact that the more developed you are, the more Greenpeace nutters you attract, with their wonderful 'logic' that we must both reduce fossil fuel use but ban nuclear power use.
Yeah, what the hell is that about?

I recon that, if the Government is sensible (!) and encourages it a little, it will eventually become the norm for private buildings to have solar panels or wind turbines on them. I don't mean in the next five, ten, or probably even twenty years, but it's just beginning to happen now and as fossil fuel prices increase, technology improves and economies of scale mean that the initial cost of such things should go down, it will start to make very good sense for people to invest in their own electricity generation in order to reduce the amount they have to buy.

But that won't be the Final Solution; there will still need to be large, reliable supplies of electricity for when it's mostly still and cloudy, and it still leaves us with the next twenty-odd years of electricity to be generated in the meantime. For that the best technology we have at the moment is nuclear power; it's pretty clean (the radioactivity of nuclear waste is generally hugely over-exaggerated), not too expensive and it hardly ever goes really wrong (just put it somewhere nobody cares about; Corby, Birmingham, etcetera).

You know, I was just thinking about something. I think I AM the cause of global warming, with me being so hott and such

-budup pshish-
Thank you,
I'll be here all night :D

Tell your girlfriend that it is also not the problem of the greedy bastards that make millions and billions by selling and manufacturing products that destroy the environment. (Oil companies, industries, China with all that coal usage, etc...)

I really am apathetic about global warming.

Where's the "It's real, it's not my problem, and I'm doing something to make it worse" option?

Never mind, I'll just go back to burning these heaps of tires and garbage bags.

Where's the "It's real, it's not my problem, and I'm doing something to make it worse" option?

Never mind, I'll just go back to burning these heaps of tires and garbage bags.

I would have picked that.:D

Especially when there are far more pressing problems out there that concern human beings here and now.

We have an entire underclass of inner city dwellers, but people think they can absolve themselves of all their social responsibilities by recycling and driving hybrids.

It pisses me off when people say theres bigger problems so fuck it. Its like moaning about the money that goes into researching rare diseases instead of cancer. it all important. If we just worry about the biggest problems the smaller ones will ruin everything anyway.

Recycling and driving a hybrid wont do anything about the inner cities and social problems, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do it. one thing has nothing to do with the other. If there are two problems you should try to solve both, ont just the most important.

Besides, in about 3 generations the chavs will have become a seperate species.

yeh, i know it's real, but i haven't got round to looking for the recycling points around my new flat yet. maybe someday when i'm not too tired or drunk.

It real, in some way at least and while it is our problem. I'm skeptical of the theory that it's mostly or only being caused by us. I feel that it is a natural process. Yes, something does need to be done, just not what we're wasting our time trying now. Because if it is a natural process, we aren't going to be able to stop it that way. What we need to do is work on how to live around and with it. In the long term, probably even having to go as far as space or something on that level.

Is global warming your problem? If it is, should you try and do something about it? Please answer honestly in the poll, because I want to know how many people truly care.

If you study ancient history, you will discover that the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are natural phenomena called "glacial pluvial periods." They are not caused by man and they cannot be controlled by man. So, cool your jets and get on with your life. If it makes you feel better, plant a couple of trees to increase the % of oxygen in the air.

If you study ancient history, you will discover that the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are natural phenomena called "glacial pluvial periods." They are not caused by man and they cannot be controlled by man. So, cool your jets and get on with your life. If it makes you feel better, plant a couple of trees to increase the % of oxygen in the air.

Its funny because we should be entering a cooling cycle. Oh, it's a knee slapper.

I help the environment by not being very much of a consumer. Although that's as much to do with the fact that 90% of what one can buy (anywhere) is utter crap as it is to do with fear of environmental destruction.

true. though you contribute to oil if you buy anything made with plastic, anything not grown locally (which probably means the majority of your food) if you drive by yourself instead of taking the train...really you can't do much anything in the suburbs without contributing to it every day.

Especially when there are far more pressing problems out there that concern human beings here and now.

We have an entire underclass of inner city dwellers, but people think they can absolve themselves of all their social responsibilities by recycling and driving hybrids.

better that than turning all the inner city dwellers into suburban nitwits. and I say that as someone who wants to make a career of helping people like that - changin the lifestyle of the well-off is just as important as helping the less fortunate.

All we're doing at the moment is eeking out the remaining supplies. Best to just get rid of them at once.

I assure you that nothing will inspire people to come up with a solution to our reliance on fossil fuels more than if we ran out of them.

that solution being global war or what? heh...did you ever play SimEarth? when you ran out of fossil fuels if you didn't get rid of global civilisation pretty quickly, they blew eachother to bits. I don't think that's very far off the truth.

Even if we cut emissions down to nil, it will still happen. We began global warming around 11,000 yrs ago. We not we as in humans, but the earth began a new period of it since then. Of course there has been a few small recessions in it, but it naturally a part of earth's cycle. Of course, we are only helping it get here faster, and I'd not like that to happen, but if it does, then I suppose we will have to deal with it then.

On a side note, I've always loved the fact that global warming will inevitable lead to a glaciation age. Kind of ironic, eh?

sort of poetic justice for environmental damage - civilisation didn' respect the earth...so the earth didn't respect civilisation. ashes to ashes, dust to dust, global civilisation to the stone age...

Either people become more efficient, protect the environment and help technology in the long term or they die out from their own stupidity. Frankly, I can't help feeling like I win either way.

true.

I lived within the blast radius of three mile island, so I'm rather wary of nuclear power...can't we just do wind turbines and dams and such instead?

If you study ancient history, you will discover that the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are natural phenomena called "glacial pluvial periods." They are not caused by man and they cannot be controlled by man. So, cool your jets and get on with your life. If it makes you feel better, plant a couple of trees to increase the % of oxygen in the air.

To be honest, I just wanted to see how many people hold the view my friend has. This was purely an experiment of curiosity.

The earth is a lump of rock billions of years old.

Life on this planet has survived harsher punishment than this.



There is not a doubt in my mind that the Earth and life in general will survive this event.

I am less optimistic of Humanity's chances.

Is global warming your problem? If it is, should you try and do something about it? Please answer honestly in the poll, because I want to know how many people truly care.

Today, I was talking to a friend, and I asked her if she would like to go see "An Inconvenient Truth" with me. She said she would go if she had to, but she had no interest in it. This was followed by the title statement: "Global warming is not my problem." She went on to say. "I don't care the world is getting screwed up. It's not like it's going to explode while I'm alive. Why should I care?" Recently she has been getting on my nerves, and what little respect I had left for her evaporated. This is a girl whose goal in life is to have and raise children. As much as I find that goal pointless, I have not held it against her. Yet, what she said about global warming not being her problem, it's in full contradiction with her goal. If her life revolves around her possible future children, shouldn't she care that she's condemning them to a hellish life? Now, this is someone who believes global warming is real, but just doesn't care. I guess you learn something new everyday.
Wow, that is one lazy, self-centered cow. It's one thing if a person can't be bothered to wash all their clothes in cold water and worry about how the packaging of their fast food was manufactured. It's quite another if she can't drag her ass to a movie that actually got good reviews.

All this argument about whether global warming is real and whether it matters or not gets on my nerves. Of course it's real, and of course it matters, but the fact that it matters needn't matter. The things that cause global warming and will destroy the future, are already bad for us today. Arguing over whether we need to care about the future of global warming is like arguing over whether one should quit smoking to prevent one's future children from being exposed to second-hand smoke. How about you quit smoking to prevent yourself from getting lung cancer?

If we conserve energy, conserve water, reduce garbage, build greener cities and use greener technologies, even just insulate our houses, the effect on the environment will become obvious in 10 years, well within our lifetimes. And we'll feel it in our immediate health. How do I know this? Because I was there in the 1970s for the Clean Air Act. I was there in New York City on the day that, for the first time in my life, I couldn't see the air in August. And I was around for Bush's rollback of environmental standards, and guess what? The air in Boston is taking on a lovely hue, and my cough is getting worse.

This isn't rocket surgery, people. Pollution is bad for your health. Try not to make so much of it.

Ye gods, there was even a Godzilla movie about this. What does it take to get through to some people?

If you study ancient history, you will discover that the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are natural phenomena called "glacial pluvial periods." They are not caused by man and they cannot be controlled by man. So, cool your jets and get on with your life. If it makes you feel better, plant a couple of trees to increase the % of oxygen in the air.And if you study prehistory, glaciology, pollen, meteorology, or any of the other sciences, chances are, you'll be warning us of global warming.

The earth is a lump of rock billions of years old.

Life on this planet has survived harsher punishment than this.No it hasn't.

Truth be told, we're both right. ;)

it's natural, global warming aint our fault, green house emissons stink, i know, but it will only kill us through air polutants, furthermore the democrats took advantage of an unaware public saying the world is gonna end if we dont vote democrat to stop green house emissions

To be honest, I just wanted to see how many people hold the view my friend has. This was purely an experiment of curiosity.

Well, now you know my position on the subject. :rolleyes:

The earth is a lump of rock billions of years old.

Life on this planet has survived harsher punishment than this.



There is not a doubt in my mind that the Earth and life in general will survive this event.

I am less optimistic of Humanity's chances.
Aye, there's the rub. Of course the planet will eventually readjust its climate to achieve equilibrium, but that is highly unlikely to be good for us. Nature can solve any problem, but the sticking point is that, in this case, WE are the problem. I don't want nature to "solve" us.

it's natural, global warming aint our fault, green house emissons stink, i know, but it will only kill us through air polutants, furthermore the democrats took advantage of an unaware public saying the world is gonna end if we dont vote democrat to stop green house emissionsThe rate at which global warming is proceeding is indeed our fault. You'll need to come up with more than "it's all a ploy from the demicratts" to disprove it.

No it hasn't.

Truth be told, we're both right. ;)

I'd say whatever killed the dinosaurs (whether you agree with the people who say it was an asteroid, or a big volcano) is about on par with Global Warming.

and still: animals managed to evolve to overcome these difficulties and thrive once again.

I believe that Global Warming is just a cycle, it'll get alittle hot, then it'll get alittle cold. I mean comon nature is all about cycles.

I'd say whatever killed the dinosaurs (whether you agree with the people who say it was an asteroid, or a big volcano) is about on par with Global Warming.

and still: animals managed to evolve to overcome these difficulties and thrive once again.Indeed. There have been several mass extinctions over the aeons. This current one is due to human activity, though that doesn't just include climate change due to global warming.

I mean comon nature is all about cycles.Not really.

I'd say whatever killed the dinosaurs (whether you agree with the people who say it was an asteroid, or a big volcano) is about on par with Global Warming.

and still: animals managed to evolve to overcome these difficulties and thrive once again.
Yeah, but the dinosaurs didn't.

Yeah, but the dinosaurs didn't.

and they were dominant.

now that we're on top...

I believe that Global Warming is just a cycle, it'll get alittle hot, then it'll get alittle cold. I mean comon nature is all about cycles.
Ah, cycles. Nothing to worry about. Right.

For several centuries, starting around 1450 and continuing into the 1800s, the planet experienced a cooling trend known as "The Little Ice Age." On average, according to a Discovery documentary about it, the average global temperature reduced by no more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit. The results were both good and bad -- the cooler temperatures broke the Black Plague, but they also destroyed crops causing widespread famine all over Europe and Asia. The interruption in the food production cycle killed millions of people every year and created waves of intense poverty which in turn created social unrest, leading to social collapses, international wars, civil wars, and an "age of revolutions." The modern world is built out of the opportunities of that period, yes, but it is also soaked in the blood of that period.

Global warming is offering us new opportunities right now with which to build a new society -- beginning with the development of alternative, non-pulluting energy sources and a new industry and new jobs to go with it; also new city planning and building technologies and so on. Our human brains could seize this problem and, by solving it, turn it into a golden opportunity to improve the world.

But no, that's all right. You all continue on with your la-di-da "it'll work itself out" attitude until the famines start again.

In case anyone is interested, here's an article about the Little Ice Age:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm

from the article
CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion there is ample evidence that a significant cooling occurred for several centuries starting around 1450 AD. This cooling caused significant changes in the distribution of plant and animal life and in the way man responded to the environment. The causes for this cooling may have derived from a combination of changes in the energy output of the sun and changes in the atmosphere of the earth which resulted from volcanic activity that reduced the amount of energy absorbed.

This uncertainty as to the cause for this cooling which so markedly affected life should warn those who demand that the Earth responds only to massive (forceful) events. Very subtle changes in the factors determining climate during the Little Ice Age occurred. One wonders how much greater they need be to cause a true ice age.

A little bit up, a little bit down. What possible difference could it make? :rolleyes: It took just a five degrees' difference last time.

and they were dominant.

now that we're on top...
Yep, it's a long way down from the top floor.

better that than turning all the inner city dwellers into suburban nitwits.
You know some people, most people, just aren't intelligent in the least, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
changin the lifestyle of the well-off is just as important as helping the less fortunate.
No. The poor are suffering, the well-off are merely irritating.

Global warming is fiction. Supposedly we're all supposed to be dead 5 years ago from this shit. Even if its real, I live where its winter 6 months out of the year, i want a londer summer anyway.:cool:

Global warming is fiction. Supposedly we're all supposed to be dead 5 years ago from this shit. Even if its real, I live where its winter 6 months out of the year, i want a londer summer anyway.:cool:Sorry, just because they call it global warming doesn't mean you'll have warmer winters. In fact, you're more likely to get even colder winters. It's just the global average temperature that's rising.

This is a girl whose goal in life is to have and raise children. As much as I find that goal pointless, I have not held it against her.
What is pointless about raising children? Your care for global warming despite thinking "damn the future generations" is more mystifying, though I do of course support anyone who tries to reduce pollution and emissions.

I believe that Global Warming is just a cycle, it'll get alittle hot, then it'll get alittle cold. I mean comon nature is all about cycles.
You're a liar. All the scientific evidence pints to the fact that human activity is causing global warming. I know it would conflict with your right-wing self-image, but please for the love of God's green earth do something.

You're a liar. All the scientific evidence pints to the fact that human activity is causing global warming. I know it would conflict with your right-wing self-image, but please for the love of God's green earth do something.It does, does it? Care to cite some of this scientific evidence? Real evidence, not theory or computer models...

It does, does it? Care to cite some of this scientific evidence? Real evidence, not theory or computer models...Glacial melting is real. Glaciers that have been around since the Ice Age are disappearing. Butterflies are migrating north in the British Isles, further than they've ever been recorded (and butterfly studying has a long tradition) to regions thought to be too cold for them. Winters are colder and summers are hotter than they've been in Europe. The frequency/intensity of flooding events has drastically increased. Desertification is destroying wide stretches of arable land. Lobsters are going extinct off the north coast of Germany due to the fact that the waters are getting too warm (lobsters that have always been living there).

Care to cite any of your evidence that it's not happening?

Funny. There was a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes on scientific articles regarding global warming that treated 928 randomly selected articles. 0% were in doubt as to whether human beings were the cause of global warming.

It does, does it? Care to cite some of this scientific evidence? Real evidence, not theory or computer models...

REAL eveidence. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169_page2.shtml) The ice does not/cannot lie!

REAL eveidence. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169_page2.shtml) The ice does not/cannot lie!Just what part of that sensationalized story do you believe is "proof"? I only have a short time to screw around today and it would be easier if I knew what part of your preconcieved notion I should tear apart first...

Real evidence against the disaster predictions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

I'm rather torn on global warming. On the one hand it's already November and it's only snowed twice and it didn't stick either time. On the other hand the Lakes have been low the last few years, and some theorize that global warming may be the cause.

Just what part of that sensationalized story do you believe is "proof"? I only have a short time to screw around today and it would be easier if I knew what part of your preconcieved notion I should tear apart first...

Ice core samples have LOTS of history in them. They can measure CO2 levels back hundreds of thousands of years and they have not increased to the current level in hundreds of thousands of years. So what caused it? Humans! What on Earth else?

Glacial melting is real. Glaciers that have been around since the Ice Age are disappearing. Butterflies are migrating north in the British Isles, further than they've ever been recorded (and butterfly studying has a long tradition) to regions thought to be too cold for them. Winters are colder and summers are hotter than they've been in Europe. The frequency/intensity of flooding events has drastically increased. Desertification is destroying wide stretches of arable land. Lobsters are going extinct off the north coast of Germany due to the fact that the waters are getting too warm (lobsters that have always been living there).

Care to cite any of your evidence that it's not happening?

Funny. There was a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes on scientific articles regarding global warming that treated 928 randomly selected articles. 0% were in doubt as to whether human beings were the cause of global warming.
There are 160,000 glaciers on the planet, there is mass balance data extending five years or more on only 79. Sorry, but that small a sample is hardly any kind of scientific proof. Supposition on the causes of butterfly migration or lobster disapearances are not "proof".

And what most people, including scientists, believe is, again, not "proof" of any sort.

Ice core samples have LOTS of history in them. They can measure CO2 levels back hundreds of thousands of years and they have not increased to the current level in hundreds of thousands of years. So what caused it? Humans! What on Earth else?An increase in CO2 levels is not what is being contested here. Proof that these levels are causing an increase in global temperature is.

A thousand years ago, the Vikings had farms in Greenland in areas that are now covered in permafrost. Did man-made CO2 cause these changes?

An increase in CO2 levels is not what is being contested here. Proof that these levels are causing an increase in global temperature is.

My God! Did you read ANY of the link??? The World Temp is hotter than it's been in at least 2000 years and arguably, several thousand years.

The link in page 2 of a 4 page report! You read it and tell us where it lies!

My God! Did you read ANY of the link??? The World Temp is hotter than it's been in at least 2000 years and arguably, several thousand years.

The link in page 2 of a 4 page report! You read it and tell us where it lies!

It lies in the fact that it completely removes the medieval warming period that was several degrees warmer than it is now.

It lies in the fact that it completely removes the medieval warming period that was several degrees warmer than it is now.

Any proof of that?

My God! Did you read ANY of the link??? The World Temp is hotter than it's been in at least 2000 years and arguably, several thousand years.

The link in page 2 of a 4 page report! You read it and tell us where it lies!
I read it. Tell me exactly how they know the temperature is warmer now than anytime during the last 2000 years. There is no source or data given. Certainly there is no record going back that far.

That's one of the reasons I referred to it as a sensationalized story, theoretical 'data' is given as a fact and most people don't even think to question it...

Well, you want a proof:

http://www.tu-berlin.de/~kehl/project/lv-twk/002-holozaen-2000jahre.htm

The site is on German, but the important thing is the diagram. As you see, the rise of the temperature from 1850 to today is much steeper than all the changes before 1850.

Do you really think, that this happend randomly?

Well, you want a proof:

http://www.tu-berlin.de/~kehl/project/lv-twk/002-holozaen-2000jahre.htm

The site is on German, but the important thing is the diagram. As you see, the rise of the temperature from 1850 to today is much steeper than all the changes before 1850.

Do you really think, that this happend randomly? That one was just plain silly, care to tell me where all those figures for temperature before recorded data came from?

I believe Global Warming is real, but I hardily believe its going to result in anything remotely “Hellish.”
Prophets of doom have never been right before, I don’t know why I should start listening to them now.

Tell that to Winston Churchill....!

If you study ancient history, you will discover that the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are natural phenomena called "glacial pluvial periods." They are not caused by man and they cannot be controlled by man. So, cool your jets and get on with your life. If it makes you feel better, plant a couple of trees to increase the % of oxygen in the air.

As long as you don't mind turning science into superstition.

It's like saying that your kettle always boils at 100 degrees, so therefore it will always boil at 100 degrees, even if you poured salt into it.

I read it. Tell me exactly how they know the temperature is warmer now than anytime during the last 2000 years. There is no source or data given. Certainly there is no record going back that far.

That's one of the reasons I referred to it as a sensationalized story, theoretical 'data' is given as a fact and most people don't even think to question it...

"We can go to any section of the ice core, to tell, basicly, what the greenhouse gas levels were; we can tell whether or not it was stormy, what the tempatures were like" Mayewski explains.

Again! We don't need right wing bullshit! Where is your proof that global warming is a myth?

I believe Global Warming is real, but I hardily believe its going to result in anything remotely “Hellish.”
Prophets of doom have never been right before, I don’t know why I should start listening to them now.

That's okay, you will once you're looking to be pressed into service filling sandbags to hold back floodwaters.

Any proof of that?

I take it you didn't bother reading the link I posted did you? Nor answer the question about Greenland. Try looking at the '96 UN report that included it then ignored in the '01 report that included the infamous "hockey stick" graph that selectively incorporated data.

"We can go to any section of the ice core, to tell, basicly, what the greenhouse gas levels were; we can tell whether or not it was stormy, what the tempatures were like" Mayewski explains.

Again! We don't need right wing bullshit! Where is your proof that global warming is a myth?Saying you can tell what the temperature was like from an ice sample and proving it are two quite seperate things. Unless you have hard data, you can't prove anything.

Don't call me right wing, junior. I'm quite sure I've been a radical liberal for much longer than you've been alive. I've been an environmental activist since the seventies, much longer than the 'crisis' of global warming has been bantered around. I'm also not the one spouting bullshit someone else fed me unquestioningly. Do your homework or shut the fuck up.

So what are you spouting? You made all this up on your own, ignoring centuries of science?

I take it you didn't bother reading the link I posted did you? Nor answer the question about Greenland. Try looking at the '96 UN report that included it then ignored in the '01 report that included the infamous "hockey stick" graph that selectively incorporated data.

Your link refers to a guy that read some old literature to base his facts.
My link reflects actual, hands on research, expaditions, and undeniable facts!

Saying you can tell what the temperature was like from an ice sample and proving it are two quite seperate things. Unless you have hard data, you can't prove anything.

Don't call me right wing, junior. I'm quite sure I've been a radical liberal for much longer than you've been alive. I've been an environmental activist since the seventies, much longer than the 'crisis' of global warming has been bantered around. I'm also not the one spouting bullshit someone else fed me unquestioningly. Do your homework or shut the fuck up.

You must have missed the ozone hole stories in the mid/late 70's then ;)

Saying you can tell what the temperature was like from an ice sample and proving it are two quite seperate things. Unless you have hard data, you can't prove anything.

Don't call me right wing, junior. I'm quite sure I've been a radical liberal for much longer than you've been alive. I've been an environmental activist since the seventies, much longer than the 'crisis' of global warming has been bantered around. I'm also not the one spouting bullshit someone else fed me unquestioningly. Do your homework or shut the fuck up.

So you would remember the "Global Cooling" scare of the '60/70's that was also "caused" by manmade CO2?

Saying you can tell what the temperature was like from an ice sample and proving it are two quite seperate things. Unless you have hard data, you can't prove anything.

Don't call me right wing, junior. I'm quite sure I've been a radical liberal for much longer than you've been alive. I've been an environmental activist since the seventies, much longer than the 'crisis' of global warming has been bantered around. I'm also not the one spouting bullshit someone else fed me unquestioningly. Do your homework or shut the fuck up.

You obviously HAVN'T done your homework! AGAIN where is ANY proof of the horseshit you are spouting!

Your link refers to a guy that read some old literature to base his facts.
My link reflects actual, hands on research, expaditions, and undeniable facts!

So even though he contradicts the article in his findings and disputes the UN etc., you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALA.

The temperatures were considerably higher a thousand years ago. They were considerably lower 400 years ago. The "hockey stick" is political encouraged BS.

Try again puppy.

All right, my time here is up for today. But bottom line people, Global warming is an unproven theory (At least that which is cause by mankind and greenhouse gases). Widely accepted, true, but woefully void of hard evidence. Even the 'trends' shown by recorded data can be massaged to 'prove' or 'disprove' the theory depending on which dates and sources you use.

But hey, if believing in it gets some people to actually care a little about the future of the planet and change their evil ways, go for it.

So you would remember the "Global Cooling" scare of the '60/70's that was also "caused" by manmade CO2?

I remember the global cooling scare of the 70's, but it wasn't a CO2 scare it was to do with particulates, which is why most of the world successfully cut the particulates that they put into the atmosphere. Ironically those particulates would have mitigated some of the greenhouse warming.

So even though he contradicts the article in his findings and disputes the UN etc., you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALA.

The temperatures were considerably higher a thousand years ago. They were considerably lower 400 years ago. The "hockey stick" is political encouraged BS.

Try again puppy.

Yes he contradicts! But offers no tangable proof!

Oh, look. Some more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm

According to Professor John Waterhouse, of Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, UK, the so-called Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600-1850) do not show up.

"Most climate researchers expected them to be there," he told the BBC News website.

He added that uncertainties in the methods used for climatic reconstruction underestimate the changeability of climate in the past.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

Global Warming is occurring.

Problem is, it's happened before and it's convienently forgotten that a warmer earth provides many benefits such as more precipitation for crops, and less coldwaves which kill twice as many people as heatwaves. Global Warming is a legitimate science that's been hijacked by idiots who use it as a vessel for anti-capitalism. If you so much as believe that curbing CO2 emissions is economically feasible, you deserve to be dragged out into a street and beaten.

Besides, it's also convienently forgotten that solar technology will become economically feasible based on model trends in the next 40-50 years, long before any farfetched gloom-and-doom scenario pans out. Al Gore's "tipping point" is nothing more than bullshit hyperbole which he purposely set "before the end of the decade" to place blame solely with the Bush Administration.

You obviously HAVN'T done your homework! AGAIN where is ANY proof of the horseshit you are spouting!Calm your nipples junior, I haven't given any data (besides the number of glaciers on the planet and the number of then that have recorded data.. and I can site a source for that if you need me to) for you to call horseshit.

Don't get pissed because I popped your bubble, look for the truth.

Yes he contradicts! But offers no tangable proof!

You obviously aren't reading it. Didn't bother checking on the .pdf link, did you? He provides the resources as well as to where the data came from.

Keep trying.

All right, my time here is up for today. But bottom line people, Global warming is an unproven theory (At least that which is cause by mankind and greenhouse gases). Widely accepted, true, but woefully void of hard evidence. Even the 'trends' shown by recorded data can be massaged to 'prove' or 'disprove' the theory depending on which dates and sources you use.

But hey, if believing in it gets some people to actually care a little about the future of the planet and change their evil ways, go for it.

So if you are correct then the hurricanes of 2K4 and 2K5; this year's Oklahoma Super Cells in the Tennessee Valley, the Tropical Flooding in New England, record heat waves all over the place and multiple, massive Typhoons striking China are ALL a coincendence. Gee how convienent!

Does anyone else find it curious that everyone who thinks, against all science, that humans have nothing to do with global warming, tend to be on the conservative/libertarian side of the political forum? I think they are not really being honest about this, but are instead towing an ideological line.

And more disputing the "hockey stick" from it's own authors.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15557

So if you are correct then the hurricanes of 2K4 and 2K5; this year's Oklahoma Super Cells in the Tennessee Valley, the Tropical Flooding in New England, record heat waves all over the place and multiple, massive Typhoons striking China are ALL a coincendence. Gee how convienent!

LOL, I'm an amateur meteorologist/storm chaser and I can tell you that none of those events were influenced by global warming. You've been tricked by the media, much like the "Summer of the Shark" of 2003. Coverage of shark attacks was all over the networks despite the fact that global shark attacks were actually below average for the year. And by your logic, this year's hurricane season should've been the worst ever, right?

Oklahoma doesn't hold any special claim for supercells. The "Tennessee Valley" storms were associated with strong spring systems, which are not uncommon by any stretch. This year was actually a huge downer for tornadoes.

Does anyone else find it curious that everyone who thinks, against all science, that humans have nothing to do with global warming, tend to be on the conservative/libertarian side of the political forum? I think they are not really being honest about this, but are instead towing an ideological line.

Does anyone else realize this is a complete ad hominem argument?

Of course you have to then believe that the UN doesn't have an agenda and the "hockey stick" graph hasn't been refuted even by it's own authors.

Does anyone else find it curious that everyone who thinks, against all science, that humans have nothing to do with global warming, tend to be on the conservative/libertarian side of the political forum? I think they are not really being honest about this, but are instead towing an ideological line.

Exact-a-Mundo! Right wingers believe global warming is a myth because the oil barron Bush family want's us ALL to believe it! Greed is very powerful! I'm not sure that even I would care about global warming if all that money were waived in my face!
*shrugs*

Oh, look. Some more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm

According to Professor John Waterhouse, of Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, UK, the so-called Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600-1850) do not show up.

"Most climate researchers expected them to be there," he told the BBC News website.

He added that uncertainties in the methods used for climatic reconstruction underestimate the changeability of climate in the past.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

I just had a look at Prof Waterhouse....seems he is well into his tree rings...

Of course scientists never engage in politics...

Exact-a-Mundo! Right wingers believe global warming is a myth because the oil barron Bush family want's us ALL to believe it! Greed is very powerful! I'm not sure that even I would care about global warming if all that money were waived in my face!
*shrugs*

What are you like, 7 years old?

LOL, I'm an amateur meteorologist/storm chaser and I can tell you that none of those events were influenced by global warming. You've been tricked by the media, much like the "Summer of the Shark" of 2003. Coverage of shark attacks was all over the networks despite the fact that global shark attacks were actually below average for the year. And by your logic, this year's hurricane season should've been the worst ever, right?You really are an amateur, aren't you? Hurricanes are influenced by global warming, the question is only how much, not if. This year's hurricane season going down does not mean that the trend has been broken.

Does anyone else realize this is a complete ad hominem argument?Can you disprove that it's mainly conservatives and libertarians that dispute it?

Of course you have to then believe that the UN doesn't have an agenda and the "hockey stick" graph hasn't been refuted even by it's own authors.It hasn't. Read your own article.

It's nice to see that both sides are capable of fiddling while Rome burns. Rightwing, leftwing -- who cares? Not the planet, certainly. And neither will we when our coasts are under water and our kids all have cancer.

So to all those who argue that global warming is nothing to worry about, answer me this:

Is pollution good for your health?

What is the (supposed) leading cause of global warming? Why it's emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, of course. So tell me this -- do those emissions improve or harm human health?

You cannot deny that large concentrations of such pollutants in the air cause breathing problems, including asthma and increased incidents of lung cancer. You cannot deny that when such pollutants enter the ground water, they contaminate drinking supplies and, through irrigation, our food sources, too. You cannot deny that the burning of fossil fuels and the powerplants and heavy industries that they run also produce pollutants such as metals -- lead, mercury, etc -- that also get into our lungs, our water and our food and, over time (not much time depending on concentrations) cause other cancers as well as birth defects.

So, if you can't give a crap about the future of the planet, how about giving a crap about your own future? Or are you so in love with those SUVs now that you'd gladly die for them?

You really are an amateur, aren't you? Hurricanes are influenced by global warming, the question is only how much, not if. This year's hurricane season going down does not mean that the trend has been broken.

The hurricanes of 2k4 and 2k5 weren't (http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm)

Q: I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming?

A: Yes, it would be absurd.

LOL, I'm an amateur meteorologist/storm chaser and I can tell you that none of those events were influenced by global warming. You've been tricked by the media, much like the "Summer of the Shark" of 2003. Coverage of shark attacks was all over the networks despite the fact that global shark attacks were actually below average for the year.
So because the sharks didn't attack and the Killer Bees didn't get us, global warming isn't real??? What???
And by your logic, this year's hurricane season should've been the worst ever, right?
It sure could have been. Thank goodness for the Unscheduled El Nino (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm) As an amateur meteorologist, you shold visit NOAA more often.
Oklahoma doesn't hold any special claim for supercells. The "Tennessee Valley" storms were associated with strong spring systems, which are not uncommon by any stretch. This year was actually a huge downer for tornadoes.

Much, much stronger than normal for the Tennessee Valley. And when was the last time Boston flooded like that? And the typhoons in China, the heat waves? The rising world temperature? Another global warming link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

It's nice to see that both sides are capable of fiddling while Rome burns. Rightwing, leftwing -- who cares? Not the planet, certainly. And neither will we when our coasts are under water and our kids all have cancer.

So to all those who argue that global warming is nothing to worry about, answer me this:

Is pollution good for your health?

What is the (supposed) leading cause of global warming? Why it's emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, of course. So tell me this -- do those emissions improve or harm human health?

You cannot deny that large concentrations of such pollutants in the air cause breathing problems, including asthma and increased incidents of lung cancer. You cannot deny that when such pollutants enter the ground water, they contaminate drinking supplies and, through irrigation, our food sources, too. You cannot deny that the burning of fossil fuels and the powerplants and heavy industries that they run also produce pollutants such as metals -- lead, mercury, etc -- that also get into our lungs, our water and our food and, over time (not much time depending on concentrations) cause other cancers as well as birth defects.

So, if you can't give a crap about the future of the planet, how about giving a crap about your own future? Or are so in love with those SUVs now that you'd gladly die for them?

*sigh*

Particulate concentrations have been steadily decreasing for quite some time now, chief.

The hurricanes of 2k4 and 2k5 weren't (http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm)

Q: I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming?

A: Yes, it would be absurd.
Who said I was attributing the Katrina disaster to global warming? I don't know the relation between hurricanes and warmer waters and how exactly this influences them. Maybe it just increases the frequency. Maybe it increases the intensity. According to your source though, warmer waters will most likely influence hurricanes.

What are you like, 7 years old?

I would expect such a statement from someone as brain-dead as you!

*sigh*

Particulate concentrations have been steadily decreasing for quite some time now, chief.In the atmosphere, yes. Not so for the soils and water.

So because the sharks didn't attack and the Killer Bees didn't get us, global warming isn't real??? What???

It sure could have been. Thank goodness for the Unscheduled El Nino (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2699.htm) As an amateur meteorologist, you shold visit NOAA more often.


Much, much stronger than normal for the Tennessee Valley. And when was the last time Boston flooded like that? And the typhoons in China, the heat waves? The rising world temperature? Another global warming link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

Wait, an unscheduled El Nino is proof of global warming now? El Nino was "unscheduled" because it's almost impossible to predict since it's intervals are incredibly irregular.

As for the rest of your events, they're purely ancedotal. In any given year, there's going to be severe weather. And with the proliferation of digital media, the internet and 24 hour Networks, we're receiving more coverage of these individual events.

Wait, an unscheduled El Nino is proof of global warming now?

What planet did THAT come from? The Unscheduled El Nino is the reason for less hurricanes this year. Daaaaammmmm! You already forgot your own question?

Today, I was talking to a friend, and I asked her if she would like to go see "An Inconvenient Truth" with me. She said she would go if she had to, but she had no interest in it. This was followed by the title statement: "Global warming is not my problem." She went on to say. "I don't care the world is getting screwed up. It's not like it's going to explode while I'm alive. Why should I care?" Recently she has been getting on my nerves, and what little respect I had left for her evaporated. This is a girl whose goal in life is to have and raise children. As much as I find that goal pointless, I have not held it against her. Yet, what she said about global warming not being her problem, it's in full contradiction with her goal. If her life revolves around her possible future children, shouldn't she care that she's condemning them to a hellish life? Now, this is someone who believes global warming is real, but just doesn't care. I guess you learn something new everyday.

doesn't seem like a contradiction to me, her aim in life is to have children not give them a comfortable life

TBH i think a desolate wasteland is just as beautiful as forest and a rainforest as nice as a polar icecap, so meh watever happens with global warming i'm ready for it (or will make sure my kids are)

it's about time we had an apocalypse considerin how much people rant about it all the time

Who said I was attributing the Katrina disaster to global warming? I don't know the relation between hurricanes and warmer waters and how exactly this influences them. Maybe it just increases the frequency. Maybe it increases the intensity. According to your source though, warmer waters will most likely influence hurricanes.

That was for Dragontide, who attributed the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 to global warming.

I used that source specifically because the guy believes that global warming could influence hurricanes.

As for the rest of your events, they're purely ancedotal. In any given year, there's going to be severe weather. And with the proliferation of digital media, the internet and 24 hour Networks, we're receiving more coverage of these individual events.

That's what I asked earlier! So you believe it is all a coincidence? As I said: "Gee how convientient for you" Much easier than any tangible proof! Typical!

In the atmosphere, yes. Not so for the soils and water.

Water, yes. The amount of rivers that violate EPA standards has dropped er the past 30 years and the levels of pollutants in freshwater fish have also dropped considerably. As for soils, I don't have any data, but using health statistics, I would assume that it's not getting worse other than maybe near superfund sites.

The hurricanes of 2k4 and 2k5 weren't (http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm)

Q: I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming?

A: Yes, it would be absurd.
Do you realize how important it is to be very clear when discussing science, or are you deliberately trying to undermine your own credibility.

Fact: Hurricanes are driven by warm ocean temperatures.

Suggestion: If global warming produces warmer ocean temperatures, this could affect hurricane activity.

Fact: There is not enough evidence about global warming and too many variables affecting hurricane activity to predict with any certainty that global warming will increase hurricane activity.

This is NOT THE SAME as saying definitively, as you have done, that global warming has nothing to do with hurricanes.

And if you knew anything at all about global warming, you'd know that the more immediate concern is not the rising temperature of the ocean but the rising levels of the ocean due to glacial melt. If the ocean levels are higher, then the storms don't need to be stronger to do more damage because even moderate storm surges will cause more flooding.

In case you'd like sound like less of an amateur, here is the NOAA FAQ page about hurricanes:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

That's what I asked earlier! So you believe it is all a coincidence? As I said: "Gee how convientient for you" Much easier than any tangible proof! Typical!

Yes. It's "coinicedental". Look around you. Everyone these days has video cameras, digital cameras, camera phones. There's been an incredible media revolution in just the past 10 years. With that, fears of global warming have arisen suddenly. You're acting as if none of these events have occurred before. This earth has been in existence for billions of years. Every year, there are multiple typhoons, hurricanes, floods, droughts, fires, tornadoes, etc. The probability of extreme events occuring are a certainity.

Do you realize how important it is to be very clear when discussing science, or are you deliberately trying to undermine your own credibility.

Fact: Hurricanes are driven by warm ocean temperatures.

Suggestion: If global warming produces warmer ocean temperatures, this could affect hurricane activity.

Fact: There is not enough evidence about global warming and too many variables affecting hurricane activity to predict with any certainty that global warming will increase hurricane activity.

This is NOT THE SAME as saying definitively, as you have done, that global warming has nothing to do with hurricanes.

And if you knew anything at all about global warming, you'd know that the more immediate concern is not the rising temperature of the ocean but the rising levels of the ocean due to glacial melt. If the ocean levels are higher, then the storms don't need to be stronger to do more damage because even moderate storm surges will cause more flooding.

In case you'd like sound like less of an amateur, here is the NOAA FAQ page about hurricanes:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G3.html

ARGH! I was trying to discredit the claim that the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes were caused by global warming. Jesus, people. I acknowledge that global warming is occurring. I'm just letting DragonTide that his examples are ANCEDOTAL.

Is global warming your problem? If it is, should you try and do something about it? Please answer honestly in the poll, because I want to know how many people truly care.
[snip]
it is a big problem, real or imagined, one point stands. wether or not 'Humans' are destroying the earth, we are certainly making the world unlivable to 'Humans' and something should be done about that.

Instead of concentrating on the big picture, we really should be concentrating on the small ones. so tell you friend, "ok, but what do you think about our dependance on fossill fuels?" perhaps her stand on alternate energy is similar to those who want it. Whatever her reason may be (economic, health, etc...), the fact that she wants a cleaner fuel source should be the important thing.

Decrease the pollution, increase the stabilization of the environment, get us away from fossil fuels and into alternative sources of energy... and you will find that the big problems become managable.

now, on to a tangent. :D

I do find the studies of the Earth's Magnetic field weakening, possibly allowing more solar radiation to enter the atmosphere, a little more interesting. Scientists do postulate that a Magnetic Reversal (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/science/13magn.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5088&en=fa82fcc07615ed08&ex=1247544000&partner=rssnyt) is in effect and that while it's going on, our protective sheilding (not just the atmosphere, but the magnetic field itself) will weaken to the point of near catastrophic failure. The effects of this spike of additional radiation is contested by all. Yes, it will increase cancer, global warming/cooling... no it won't be a danger to humans, only animals, computers and compasses will be affected...

the only thing they do seem to agree on is that the light show would be spectacular... and long...

But I wonder... could the increase in radiation also account for the global warming?

I like my globe like I like my cookies: Warm and gooey. :)with huge chunks of chocolate chips embedded inside... I hope...

*sigh*

Particulate concentrations have been steadily decreasing for quite some time now, chief.
*sigh*

Not since the recent rollback of Clean Air Act regulations, since when we have seen an increase of industrial pollution in the immediate area of industrial plants, and an increase of pollutants in ground soil and open water sources so high that just a couple of years ago, the state of Massachusetts issued warnings against eating local fresh water fish, especially for women, and some counties have actually banned recreational fishing due to water pollution.

Primary worry -- mercury. Primary reason -- brain damage and birth defects; these are known and well documented effects; also, some studies have linked pre-natal mercury exposure to autism. Primary source of recent high levels of mercury in the water -- industrial pollution, mostly from power plants.

ARGH! I was trying to discredit the claim that the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes were caused by global warming. Jesus, people. I acknowledge that global warming is occurring. I'm just letting DragonTide that his examples are ANCEDOTAL.
So what? You did so in a manner that only increases worries about global warming because you failed to make the necessary clear distinctions about what is and what could be. It is your laxity that is at fault. Rather than come off as a calming voice of science, you sound just as shrill and even less informed than Dragontide.

And you fail to address my point that global warming could be rendered irrelevant if we address the more immediate concerns of pollution resulting from excessive energy usage, fossil fuels, and industrial pollution. If we clean the environment now, then either global warming will cease to be a problem or we will learn definitively that human activity doesn't affect it -- and get better health in the bargain. Win-win.

Yes. It's "coinicedental". Look around you. Everyone these days has video cameras, digital cameras, camera phones. There's been an incredible media revolution in just the past 10 years. With that, fears of global warming have arisen suddenly.

While the Ice caps have continued to melt! Is it normal that all of a sudden, polar bears are starving and drowning? (due to the ice melting beneath them)
If it is normal, then why are they not already extinct? (as they soon Will be!) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169_page4.shtml)

Water, yes. The amount of rivers that violate EPA standards has dropped er the past 30 years and the levels of pollutants in freshwater fish have also dropped considerably. As for soils, I don't have any data, but using health statistics, I would assume that it's not getting worse other than maybe near superfund sites.
You don't have any data, but you're just going to go ahead and assume. Yet you claim to be arguing from science. Great. Let us know when you have a real argument to make.

That's okay, you will once you're looking to be pressed into service filling sandbags to hold back floodwaters.
At least it would give me something to do.

If water levels rise, we’ll take preventative measures beforehand.

There is simply no conclusive proof that the Medieval Warm period was global and not regional.

""The ill-defined evidence for a range of climate anomalies occurring over a wide time interval has created the notion that the MWE (Medieval Warm Epoch) was a definitive global phenomenon," the team wrote. "
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_03/EDU_news_101703_b.php

My God! Did you read ANY of the link??? The World Temp is hotter than it's been in at least 2000 years and arguably, several thousand years.

The link in page 2 of a 4 page report! You read it and tell us where it lies!

....

These need to be reposted again I think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/nwarm05.gif

-

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

The most telling part:

In their two seminal papers, Mann and his colleagues purported to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last thousand years. Since 1000, temperatures gradually decreased (the shaft of the hockey stick), only to increase sharply from 1900 onwards (the blade).The implication is obvious: Human interference caused this trend to change. McIntyre and McKitrick merely attempted to replicate this oft-quoted study. In doing so, they identified mistake after mistake. They also discovered that this fundamental reconstruction had never actually been replicated by the IPCC or any other scientist. In their replication, basically derived from the same data, temperatures in the 15th century were just as high as they are today -- an outcome that takes the edge off the alarmist scenario of anthropogenic global warming. The criticism by the Canadians is mostly technical in nature: They claim that Mann and his colleagues have misused an established statistical method -- principal component analysis (PCA) -- so that their calculations simply mined data for hockey-stick shaped series and that Mann's results are statistically meaningless.

---


Does anyone else find it curious that everyone who thinks, against all science, that humans have nothing to do with global warming, tend to be on the conservative/libertarian side of the political forum? I think they are not really being honest about this, but are instead towing an ideological line.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! x100,000,000

Coming from the left.. :rolleyes:

Global warming is real, and it IS my problem.

Tell me what I can do about it, and I will. Cuz I answered "I'm not doing anything about it," because even tho it is my problem, it is not my solution, if ya know what I mean. Doesnt it need collective action?

I don't think what I can directly do, like using less electricity or taking public transport will be particularly helpful. The average person's necessary role in making global warming their problem stops at making it the government's problem.

I don't think what I can directly do, like using less electricity or taking public transport will be particularly helpful. The average person's necessary role in making global warming their problem stops at making it the government's problem.

So just pick one! Get in the habit of turning off that light or walking to the store, or buy a hybrid car, etc... If we all started practicing at least one, environmently friendly habit, then it can certainly make a difference, at some point down the road.

But you are correct. Global warming's biggest enemy is legislation.

Global Warming may be real. I think it's one of the things being "hyped up". To cause fear and paranoia.

I will continue to drive my Full size '95 Ford Bronco 4x4. It's an awesome truck. It has a 5.8 L 351 V-8. I have started using a different type of oil for it. It is Royal Purple 10W40. It burns a lot cleaner than the other oils. You only need to change the oil every 10,000 miles. I'll actually be changing mine at every 9,000 miles. It also increases the horse power and torque. Saves gas, runs quieter, etc....

http://www.synerlec.com/index.html

http://www.rpmoil.com/

I am a Royal Purple Oil lifer now since I have used it and it has convinced me to remain a loyal customer. It increases the life of the engine also.

I also go to the Harley Davidson shop and buy their fuel additive which costs $8/bottle after taxes. It's only a 4 oz bottle and the suggested use is 1 oz/10 gallons of gas. It helps the combustion, saves gas, etc..... Really good fuel additive.

....

These need to be reposted again I think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/nwarm05.gif

-

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

The most telling part:



---



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! x100,000,000

Coming from the left.. :rolleyes:

Oh, please no more junkscience links.

"Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide. [3]

Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours." In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours.[4]. "
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

"Industry defenders shelled the study, and, with a dearth of science to marshal to their side, used opinion pieces and press releases instead. “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice,” blared FoxNews.com columnist Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute ($75,000 from ExxonMobil) who also publishes the website JunkScience.com. Two days later the conservative Washington Times published the same column. Neither outlet disclosed that Milloy, who debunks global warming concerns regularly, runs two organizations that receive money from ExxonMobil. Between 2000 and 2003, the company gave $40,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Center, which is registered to Milloy’s home address in Potomac, Maryland, according to IRS documents. ExxonMobil gave another $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute—also registered to Milloy’s residence."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

As to the other two links:

"The two pieces both spend a lot of time discussing climate sensitivity but since they don't clearly say so upfront, it might not at first be obvious. (This is possibly because if you google the words 'climate sensitivity' you get very sensible discussions of the concept from Wikipedia, ourselves and the National Academies). We have often made the case here that equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 +/- 0.25 C/(W/m2) (corresponding to about a 3°C rise for a doubling of CO2).

Both these pieces instead purport to show using 'common sense' arguments that climate sensitivity must be small (more like 0.2 W/m2, or less than 1°C for 2xCO2). Our previous posts should be enough to demonstrate that this can't be correct, but it worth seeing how they arithimetically manage to get these answers. To save you having to wade through it all, I'll give you the answer now: the clue is in the units of climate sensitivity - °C/(W/m2). Any temperature change (in °C) divided by any energy flux (in W/m2) will have the same unit and thus can be 'compared'. But unless you understand how radiative forcing is defined (it's actually quite specific), and why it's a useful diagnostic, these similar seeming values could be confusing. Which is presumably the point.

Readers need to be aware of at least two basic things. First off, an idealised 'black body' (which gives of radiation in a very uniform and predictable way as a function of temperature - encapsulated in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) has a basic sensitivity (at Earth's radiating temperature) of about 0.27 °C/(W/m2). That is, a change in radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2 would give around 1°C warming. The second thing to know is that the Earth is not a black body! On the real planet, there are multitudes of feedbacks that affect other greenhouse components (ice alebdo, water vapour, clouds etc.) and so the true issue for climate sensitivity is what these feedbacks amount to.

So here's the first trick. Ignore all the feedbacks - then you will obviously get to a number that is close to the 'black body' calculation. Duh! Any calculation that lumps together water vapour and CO2 is effectively doing this (and if anyone is any doubt about whether water vapour is forcing or a feedback, I'd refer them to this older post).

As we explain in our glossary item, climatologists use the concept of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity because it provides a very robust predictive tool for knowing what model results will be, given a change of forcing. The climate sensitivity is an output of complex models (it is not decided ahead of time) and it doesn't help as much with the details of the response (i.e. regional patterns or changes in variance), but it's still quite useful for many broad brush responses. Empirically, we know that for a particular model, once you know its climate sensitivity you can easily predict how much it will warm or cool if you change one of the forcings (like CO2 or solar). We also know that the best definition of the forcing is the change in flux at the tropopause, and that the most predictable diagnostic is the global mean surface temperature anomaly. Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well).

So for our next trick, try dividing energy fluxes at the surface by temperature changes at the surface. As is obvious, this isn't the same as the definition of climate sensitivity - it is in fact the same as the black body (no feedback case) discussed above - and so, again it's no surprise when the numbers come up as similar to the black body case.

But we are still not done! The next thing to conviently forget is that climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept. It tells you the temperature that you get to eventually. In a transient situation (such as we have at present), there is a lag related to the slow warm up of the oceans, which implies that the temperature takes a number of decades to catch up with the forcings. This lag is associated with the planetary energy imbalance and the rise in ocean heat content. If you don't take that into account it will always make the observed 'sensitivity' smaller than it should be. Therefore if you take the observed warming (0.6°C) and divide by the estimated total forcings (~1.6 +/- 1W/m2) you get a number that is roughly half the one expected. You can even go one better - if you ignore the fact that there are negative forcings in the system as well (cheifly aerosols and land use changes), the forcing from all the warming effects is larger still (~2.6 W/m2), and so the implied sensitivity even smaller! Of course, you could take the imbalance (~0.33 +/- 0.23 W/m2 in a recent paper) into account and use the total net forcing, but that would give you something that includes 3°C for 2xCO2 in the error bars, and that wouldn't be useful, would it?

And finally, you can completely contradict all your prior working by implying that all the warming is due to solar forcing. Why is this contradictory? Because all of the above tricks work for solar forcings as well as greenhouse gas forcings. Either there are important feedbacks or there aren't. You can't have them for solar and not for greenhouse gases. Our best estimates of solar are that it is about 10 to 15% the magnitude of the greenhouse gas forcing over the 20th Century. Even if that is wrong by a factor of 2 (which is conceivable), it's still less than half of the GHG changes. And of course, when you look at the last 50 years, there are no trends in solar forcing at all. Maybe it's best not to mention that."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/#more-367

I believe Global Warming is real, but I hardily believe its going to result in anything remotely “Hellish.”
Prophets of doom have never been right before, I don’t know why I should start listening to them now.

Except those prophets that predicted the downfall of the Roman Empire, the Maya, and every other human civilization that has fallen since the dawn of time. Our civilization is just as vulnerable, perhaps even more so do to our scale.

Global Warming need not result in anything hellish, but it will be a pretty rough ride if we refuse to do anything about it.

But surely it's wise to attempt to minimise the ill effects before it gets so bad "adapt and survive" is all we can do?
Exactly. The best option for an uncertain future is that which leaves the most options open.

Either people become more efficient, protect the environment and help technology in the long term or they die out from their own stupidity. Frankly, I can't help feeling like I win either way.

Sadly, those most vulnerable to climate change are not necessarily the same people that contributed to it.

Really, and how long have you been a 9 year old girl?

About the same time you became a cranky old man.

Real evidence against the disaster predictions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Monckton tries to blame the old bogeyman "the sun" in spite of the fact that several studies have disproved that solar irradiation is the main cause of global warming. Even the solar expert that Monckton quotes, Sami Solanki, says that Greenhouse Gases are the main cause of warming, and that solar plays only a minor role. Monckton conveniently ommitted that part of Solanki's assessment. this isn't evidence, just more apologist rhetoric.

A thousand years ago, the Vikings had farms in Greenland in areas that are now covered in permafrost. Did man-made CO2 cause these changes?

Nope. The end of the medieval warm period did.

I read it. Tell me exactly how they know the temperature is warmer now than anytime during the last 2000 years. There is no source or data given. Certainly there is no record going back that far.

That's one of the reasons I referred to it as a sensationalized story, theoretical 'data' is given as a fact and most people don't even think to question it...

The concern is not with the level of the temperature at the moment per se, but the speed at which it is increasing, and the reasons for that rapid increase.

I take it you didn't bother reading the link I posted did you? Nor answer the question about Greenland. Try looking at the '96 UN report that included it then ignored in the '01 report that included the infamous "hockey stick" graph that selectively incorporated data.

For myth v.s fact regarding the hockey stick, see realclimate.org

If you so much as believe that curbing CO2 emissions is economically feasible, you deserve to be dragged out into a street and beaten.

It's not only economically feasible, it's economically efficient. Read September's SciAm Energy issue.

It does, does it? Care to cite some of this scientific evidence? Real evidence, not theory or computer models...
In other news, it is contested by Lost planet that the sky is blue.

Real evidence against the disaster predictions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
It's a needle in a haystack. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

And world government conspiracies? That's just paranoid.

In the unlikely event that the global warming threat is overstated, wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry?

That one was just plain silly, care to tell me where all those figures for temperature before recorded data came from?
Environmental archaeology mate.

"Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year. "
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

"4. Is there legitimate scientific debate about the accuracy of the hockey stick graph?

Yes, but mainly about the details, not the essential point. Temperature fluctuations that predate written records are preserved in natural archives (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, boreholes) with various time periods (e.g., seasonal, annual, decadal). The scientific discussion has focused on the best statistical method for combining these various records to accurately capture temperature fluctuations for the Northern Hemisphere. As is typical of the scientific process, independent teams of researchers have worked to reproduce the results of the "hockey stick" by using their own approaches and even by using slightly different data. These studies sometimes produce slightly higher temperature fluctuations in the past compared with the initial study. But despite their differences, they still yield the same essential conclusion: the past 10- to 20-year period was likely the warmest of the past millennium."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think the phenomenon is self-correcting, no matter what the cause.

The melting ice caps and glaciers will cause the "conveyor belt" (the world-wide current of water that's responsible for stabilizing the climate) to stop. This will, in turn, cause a new ice age, thus rendering the whole global warming argument moot.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think the phenomenon is self-correcting, no matter what the cause.

The melting ice caps and glaciers will cause the "conveyor belt" (the world-wide current of water that's responsible for stabilizing the climate) to stop. This will, in turn, cause a new ice age, thus rendering the whole global warming argument moot.

Neither is that good nor is it contrary to the science of Global Warming which really should be referred to as Climate Change.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think the phenomenon is self-correcting, no matter what the cause.

The melting ice caps and glaciers will cause the "conveyor belt" (the world-wide current of water that's responsible for stabilizing the climate) to stop. This will, in turn, cause a new ice age, thus rendering the whole global warming argument moot.

Hmmm. A bunch of severe weather, deadly dry spells and heat waves, forrest fires, unhealthy air to breathe and erroding coastlines; followed by ice age type conditions dosn't exactly sound like Disneyland. I would hardly call it a moot point!

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think the phenomenon is self-correcting, no matter what the cause.

The melting ice caps and glaciers will cause the "conveyor belt" (the world-wide current of water that's responsible for stabilizing the climate) to stop. This will, in turn, cause a new ice age, thus rendering the whole global warming argument moot.

So you're for a new ice age then? I mean I like the snow but I wouldn't want another ice age

So you're for a new ice age then? I mean I like the snow but I wouldn't want another ice age

No, I don't really want a new ice-age, but I think we are unavoidably headed in that direction. Unless of course the super-caldera known as Yellowstone National Park blows, in which case, we'll have a reasonable facsimile of a nuclear winter. We're just in for fun in so many ways.

The idea was to point out that, while we may have hurried global warming, we hardly caused it. We have been having cycles of ice-ages and warm-ages for millenia.

The last mini ice-age started in @1350 a.d. and ended @1850 a.d.

Neither is that good nor is it contrary to the science of Global Warming which really should be referred to as Climate Change.

I really don't consider using selected evidence to make a circumstantial case for global warming, science. Nobody supporting global warming "science" has ever conducted an experiment b/c quite frankly, you can't. You can only look at past evidence and try to make a circumstantial case. Unfourtunately, the burden of proof is on those trying to prove that global warming is happening and being caused by humans. Neither of which you can prove without doubt.

All right, my time here is up for today. But bottom line people, Global warming is an unproven theory (At least that which is cause by mankind and greenhouse gases).

Gravity is a fucking unproven theory as well. Science does not deal with proof, and saying theory as if it's a bad thing only makes you look like you know nothing about science.

Gravity is a fucking unproven theory as well. Science does not deal with proof, and saying theory as if it's a bad thing only makes you look like you know nothing about science.

Alas, the two are not comparable. Scientists have created a model which explains the force of gravity and accurately predicts its effects. There are formulas used to calculate the force of attraction between two objects, and they have not been proven incorrect thus far (except, perhaps, on a quantum scale). As such, gravity is considered a scientific law. On the other hand, human-caused global warming is nothing but a conclusion derived from circumstancial evidence with to bearing on reality and no theories which can adequately map its behavior. The logic runs thusly: the world is getting slightly warming and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere serve to increase temperatures, therefore we are the cause of global warming, the sky is falling, and we should all run for our lives because the day of doom is upon us. Global warming (as it is caused by humans) is nothing but a barely substantiated conjecture without much real scientific merit. In short, nobody really understands it, nor has sufficient proof with which to back it up. And even if it was proven to be real, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I wouldn't stop driving my Hummer and I certainly wouldn't start conserving energy and whatnot.

I really don't consider using selected evidence to make a circumstantial case for global warming, science. Nobody supporting global warming "science" has ever conducted an experiment b/c quite frankly, you can't. You can only look at past evidence and try to make a circumstantial case. Unfourtunately, the burden of proof is on those trying to prove that global warming is happening and being caused by humans. Neither of which you can prove without doubt.

There is plenty of evidence. Nothing circumstantial about it. Click on the links in this thread. If you can find faults in them. Especially this one, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) then, heck, you've made the discovery of the century! Don't waist your time here. Call 60 Minutes. If you have something tangable, I'm sure you could be on the air next Sunday! You could win a Nobel Prize if you can prove that all those scientists are mistaken or outright lying! :)

Global warming is happening. It is not caused by humans, although in this instance the process may be accelerated by humans. As I stated earlier, we have had, for millenia, cycles of global warming and cooling. A mini-ice age ended approximately 150 years ago, the warming trend that we are in is part of a natural cycle and whether are not the trend is being made worse by humans is not yet proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the premature conclusions of some (by no means all) scientists notwithstanding.

Global warming is happening. It is not caused by humans, although in this instance the process may be accelerated by humans. As I stated earlier, we have had, for millenia, cycles of global warming and cooling. A mini-ice age ended approximately 150 years ago, the warming trend that we are in is part of a natural cycle and whether are not the trend is being made worse by humans is not yet proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the premature conclusions of some (by no means all) scientists notwithstanding.

The situation reads much more like recent solar activity and other natural occourances have accelerated the damage caused by humans in the past 100 years! CO2 emisions accelerate the global warming process expotentially and current CO2 levels are higher than they have been in half a million years or more.

The situation reads much more like recent solar activity and other natural occourances have accelerated the damage caused by humans in the past 100 years! CO2 emisions accelerate the global warming process expotentially and current CO2 levels are higher than they have been in half a million years or more.

Then what you're saying is that we can't really fix the problem because we simply don't have the technology to monitor and control solar activity and "other natural occurances."

The human damage is self-limiting. We'll either choose wisdom and change our ways or we'll destroy ourselves. The Earth will start to heal and the process of evolution will continue.

Then what you're saying is that we can't really fix the problem because we simply don't have the technology to monitor and control solar activity and "other natural occurances."

The human damage is self-limiting. We'll either choose wisdom and change our ways or we'll destroy ourselves. The Earth will start to heal and the process of evolution will continue.

Correct! The current global warming crisis should not render mankind extinct but the world as we know it is going to undergo some MAJOR changes! What we can do is try to lessen the effects of the forthcoming environmental holocaust. And only some radical legislation can accomplish that great task. Gas powered cars have to go. (very soon) Industries have to clean up their act! Coal usage in China and India has to stop!

Future G8 summit meetings that meet these issues, head on, are our only hope! People need to tell their elected officials this!!!

There is plenty of evidence. Nothing circumstantial about it. Click on the links in this thread. If you can find faults in them. Especially this one, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) then, heck, you've made the discovery of the century! Don't waist your time here. Call 60 Minutes. If you have something tangable, I'm sure you could be on the air next Sunday! You could win a Nobel Prize if you can prove that all those scientists are mistaken or outright lying! :)

Ok why don't we go over that article. First off he can project, w/o serious doubt, the climate in 100years. Any hundreds of things can happen between now and then. You can't possible change the course of humanity b/c of a couple computer models that have already turned out to be wrong on many counts, one of which is that they predicted much higher atmospheric temps whereas they have done nothing of the sort. The article is just a bunch of rhetoric and no science. Also, im pretty sure that ice melted before also but they're fear mongering about a crevice in the ice. He says that we havn't seen Co2 levels this high ever, and he may be right i don't feel like looking up any counter arguments, but what he fails to mentions is that Co2 isn't by any means the greatest contributer to the green house effect. The biggest contributer, in fact about 96%, is water vapor. He also says that the U.S. is the biggest contributor to Co2 but fails to mention that along w/ that, the U.S. itself has seen no warming trends.

Ok why don't we go over that article. First off he can project, w/o serious doubt, the climate in 100years. Any hundreds of things can happen between now and then. You can't possible change the course of humanity b/c of a couple computer models that have already turned out to be wrong on many counts, one of which is that they predicted much higher atmospheric temps whereas they have done nothing of the sort. The article is just a bunch of rhetoric and no science. Also, im pretty sure that ice melted before also but they're fear mongering about a crevice in the ice. He says that we havn't seen Co2 levels this high ever, and he may be right i don't feel like looking up any counter arguments, but what he fails to mentions is that Co2 isn't by any means the greatest contributer to the green house effect. The biggest contributer, in fact about 96%, is water vapor. He also says that the U.S. is the biggest contributor to Co2 but fails to mention that along w/ that, the U.S. itself has seen no warming trends.

Yes! Water vapor! From warming waters. Waters that should not be that warm. (also the reason for increased hurricane activity)

The US and the rest of the world are breaking heat wave records almost every year now! The past 4 years are among the 5 warmest years on record. And at our current rate 2006 could end up setting a new record.Link-1 (http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/2006weather.htm) Link-2 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13860976/)

Yes! Water vapor! From warming waters. Waters that should not be that warm. (also the reason for increased hurricane activity)

The US and the rest of the world are breaking heat wave records almost every year now! The past 4 years are among the 5 warmest years on record. And at our current rate 2006 could end up setting a new record.Link-1 (http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/2006weather.htm) Link-2 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13860976/)

Wow, the highest temp for a little over 100 years. Im scared now. One year in a very small time frame = nothing. And no, water vapor hasn't increased.

The 1930's record highs were broken? When? Not this last summer. Not the summer before that. Or before that. Came close this last time around but it was still under record.

Dragontide and all other alarmists,
There is no certainty with something this far away in a system as chaotic as the atmosphere. Hellish scenarios are unlikely at best and impossible at worst. Just about every single model 10 years ago overshot current temps but 300% or more. The interglacial we're in right now is near its end. Some of the most experienced meteorologists have serious doubts about the current theory and the people behind it. Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC AR4 because he said the organization was exagerating results and being motivated by pre-conceived agendas.

Close these gaps and come up with real solutions that won't inhibit humanity. 3rd and 2nd world countries have as much right to develop into 1st as we did when we were at their level. Focus on feeding the starving and sheltering the homeless. Your fist duty as a human is to humanity, not obscure species of algae.

Nobody supporting global warming "science" has ever conducted an experiment b/c quite frankly, you can't.

clearly we don't read the same scientific journals

Some of the most experienced meteorologists have serious doubts about the current theory and the people behind it.

though they all seem to be physically incapable of doing some of that, you know, actual research and publishing it in, whatdayacall 'em, peer reviewed journals to back up that position. funny, that.

water vapor hasn't increased.

Yes! It has!!! 4% since 1970!!! (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html)

though they all seem to be physically incapable of doing some of that, you know, actual research and publishing it in, whatdayacall 'em, peer reviewed journals to back up that position. funny, that.
Hell, even a geologist got a paper published in the GRL showing that the climb isn't as extreme and that the past is more varied than Mann and friends would have you believe. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed journals that are critical of some global-warming studies.

Dr. William Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. He also happens to be skeptical of human caused global warming and especially the extreme scenarios predicted.

I could go on and on but I don't see what good can come of it. You're a loyal convert and I'll respect you and your faith so long as neither attempt to infringe upon the freedoms others. Good day, sir.

The 1930's record highs were broken? When? Not this last summer. Not the summer before that. Or before that. Came close this last time around but it was still under record.

Dragontide and all other alarmists,
There is no certainty with something this far away in a system as chaotic as the atmosphere. Hellish scenarios are unlikely at best and impossible at worst. Just about every single model 10 years ago overshot current temps but 300% or more. The interglacial we're in right now is near its end. Some of the most experienced meteorologists have serious doubts about the current theory and the people behind it. Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC AR4 because he said the organization was exagerating results and being motivated by pre-conceived agendas.

Close these gaps and come up with real solutions that won't inhibit humanity. 3rd and 2nd world countries have as much right to develop into 1st as we did when we were at their level. Focus on feeding the starving and sheltering the homeless. Your fist duty as a human is to humanity, not obscure species of algae.
Which scientists? Names, please.

I really don't consider using selected evidence to make a circumstantial case for global warming, science. Nobody supporting global warming "science" has ever conducted an experiment b/c quite frankly, you can't. You can only look at past evidence and try to make a circumstantial case. Unfourtunately, the burden of proof is on those trying to prove that global warming is happening and being caused by humans. Neither of which you can prove without doubt.

I don't see any argument here or anything disproving the science I've shown so far. I see opinion, which is fine for you to have.

Hell, even a geologist got a paper published in the GRL showing that the climb isn't as extreme and that the past is more varied than Mann and friends would have you believe. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed journals that are critical of some global-warming studies.

Dr. William Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. He also happens to be skeptical of human caused global warming and especially the extreme scenarios predicted.

I could go on and on but I don't see what good can come of it. You're a loyal convert and I'll respect you and your faith so long as neither attempt to infringe upon the freedoms others. Good day, sir.

Wow! That must be hard work to find those few scientists that disagree with global warming theories! (as most scientists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html) see it as a real threat)

"TESTIMONY

JAY GULLEDGE, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW
PEW CENTER ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

July 27, 2006

At the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing: Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments

Examining the "Hockey Stick" Controversy"

"If you take nothing else from my testimony, please take these three points:

1. The scientific evidence of significant human influence on climate is strong and would in no way be weakened if there were no Mann hockey stick.

2. The scientific debate over the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been gradually evolving for at least 20 years. The results of the Mann hockey stick simply reflect the gradual development of thought on the issue over time.

3. The impact of the McIntyre and McKitrick critique on the original Mann paper, after being scrutinized by the National Academy of Science, the Wegman panel and a number of meticulous individual research groups, is essentially nil with regard to the conclusions of the Mann paper and the 2001 IPCC assessment.

The science of climate change is an extraordinary example of a theory-driven, data-rich scientific paradigm, the likes of which, arguably, has not occurred since the development of quantum mechanics in the first half of the twentieth century. The product of this strong scientific framework is a body of strong, multifaceted evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are causing contemporary global warming, and that this warming trend is inducing large-scale changes in global climate. The primary evidence is based on physical principles and observational and experimental analysis of contemporary climate dynamics, as opposed to analyses of past climates, which are the subject of this hearing. We can now say with confidence that the evidence of human influence on climate is strong, as described by Dr. Cicerone."
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

you think the people who can't forecast the weather precisely 12 hrs in advance can predict global warming 50 years in the future - you're idiots to believe them

it's more about fear and putting $ into environmentalish hands

Hell, even a geologist got a paper published in the GRL showing that the climb isn't as extreme and that the past is more varied than Mann and friends would have you believe.

cite?

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have published a number of papers in peer-reviewed journals that are critical of some global-warming studies.

i could have sworn that i asked for research, and not already undermined attempted critiques of other peoples' research...

Dr. William Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. He also happens to be skeptical of human caused global warming and especially the extreme scenarios predicted.

how nice for him

I could go on and on

no, you couldn't. one side is holding literally all of the evidence and it ain't yours.

you think the people who can't forecast the weather precisely 12 hrs in advance can predict global warming 50 years in the future - you're idiots to believe them

it's more about fear and putting $ into environmentalish hands

I'm glad that I'm not suicidal because that may have pushed me over the edge.

it's more about fear and putting $ into environmentalish hands

I'm glad you brought that up. Some scientists say that global warming is a threat while others disagree! One side is wrong. If one side is outright lying then money would be the most likely reason!

So how much money does a scientist make when he/she sees a problem with the environment? When they report their findings, I don't see an 800 number at the bottom of the screen asking for a donation and I certainly don't see them being showcased on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous!

On the other hand, big industry and big oil companies would lose big money if they are forced to cut back production due to the damage their production causes to the environment!

We are in this mess because of money and greed! And legislation needs to put a stop to it PDQ!!!

I really should do something about global warming, but I really can't be arsed.:p

But no, that's all right. You all continue on with your la-di-da "it'll work itself out" attitude until the famines start again.
Has any nation with a free press ever experienced famine?

Ever wonder if there's a connection there?

For those that are waiting for next weeks DVD release of "An Inconvienent Truth" look for a DVD released this week titled: "Who Killed the Electric Car" An incredible, eye opening film, narrated by Martin Sheen!

For those that are waiting for next weeks DVD release of "An Inconvienent Truth" look for a DVD released this week titled: "Who Killed the Electric Car" An incredible, eye opening film, narrated by Martin Sheen!
I had wanted to see that. I'm curious, who did kill the electric car?

I suspect the creation and destruction of the electric car can be traced to government intervention in the economy.

I had wanted to see that. I'm curious, who did kill the electric car?

I suspect the creation and destruction of the electric car can be traced to government intervention in the economy.

Hmmmm. I'd just rather not say. I was going to start a thread on it but don't want to spoil it for those who havn't rented it yet. I will tell you it is mostly about the EV-1 developed by General Motors. Along with Martin Sheen as narrator, the film also has guest apperances by Tom Hanks, Phillis Diller, Ralph Nader and others. A 93 minute film that is well worth the time to watch it. Enjoy!

Is global warming your problem? If it is, should you try and do something about it?


"Global warming is not my problem." "I don't care the world is getting screwed up. It's not like it's going to explode while I'm alive. Why should I care?" shouldn't she care that she's condemning them to a hellish life? Now, this is someone who believes global warming is real, but just doesn't care.

yep. me2 .I don't give a shit. fuck it.

I'd just like to say, I like global warming. It has been getting warmer, it's real, and nice. In our area the growing seasons have gotten longer, and as a result out crop production has improved. Our winters haven't been as harsh either.

*as may of already been said* global warming has happended since the dawn of time so yeah its real but i can't see a reason for trying to stop it if it is going to keep going so im doing nothing about it

*as may of already been said* global warming has happended since the dawn of time

Has been said! But not even close to have been proven! Read the links in this thread. Arguing there is no threat from global warming is like arguing that oranges are blue.

I'd just like to say, I like global warming. It has been getting warmer, it's real, and nice. In our area the growing seasons have gotten longer, and as a result out crop production has improved. Our winters haven't been as harsh either.

Jesus.

Jesus.
What? Some people clearly do stand to benefit from global warming.

""Our new report shows that news audiences continue to be deceived by fake TV news," said Diane Farsetta, CMD senior researcher and co-author of the report. "Of the 54 VNR broadcasts that we documented, only two offered clear disclosure of the client behind the segment. Nearly 90 percent of the time, TV stations made no effort to disclose at all."

The new report documents news broadcasts of VNRs from major corporations, such as General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Allstate Insurance and Novartis. One VNR, funded by a lobbying firm that represents ExxonMobil, claimed that there is no link between global warming and more severe hurricane activity.

More than 80 percent of the stations snared in CMD's research are owned by large media conglomerates — including stations owned by News Corp., Tribune, Gannett, Disney, the Washington Post Co., Sinclair Broadcasting, Media General and Univision.

"The evidence suggests a strong tie between media consolidation and the use of deceptive, pre-packaged propaganda," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, which organized an activism campaign that has generated tens of thousands of letters to the FCC protesting fake news. "Corporate PR firms offer local stations VNRs knowing there's a built-in incentive to use them. By dressing up fake news as local reporting, stations cut costs. But viewers have no way to know they're being duped.""

http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=183

Red flags, anyone? Anyone?

There are a number of articles to be found through Google news, I typed FCC VNR, in case that link isn't up to par for some of you.

What? Some people clearly do stand to benefit from global warming.

Oh, sure. For a little while.

Oh, sure. For a little while.

Exactly! A winning hand! Will the next one also be four aces? I hope Ritzistan is ready for the next hand, because mother nature is about to shuffle again!

I'd just like to say, I like global warming. It has been getting warmer, it's real, and nice. In our area the growing seasons have gotten longer, and as a result out crop production has improved. Our winters haven't been as harsh either.Incorrect. That may apply where you live, but my winters have been harsher, and growing seasons have pretty much ceased to exist in some areas of the world due to droughts.

Has been said! But not even close to have been proven! Read the links in this thread. Arguing there is no threat from global warming is like arguing that oranges are blue.

i never said there no threat, simply said it will keep happening so i won't try to stop it

Incorrect. That may apply where you live, but my winters have been harsher, and growing seasons have pretty much ceased to exist in some areas of the world due to droughts.
How is that incorrect? Global warming may well be making his life better.

i need to eat.

You can't say its not your problem. Everything you do in life affects the world one way or another, and ultimately global warming.

You can't say its not your problem. Everything you do in life affects the world one way or another, and ultimately global warming.
Well technically your very existance is affecting the course of the unvierse. But so does the position of an electron. Doesn't mean your having the impact you think you are. Man is not bigger than nature.

How is that incorrect? Global warming may well be making his life better.Not for very long. Irrespective of his local conditions & the region he inhabits, global warming will not just make the global market poorer (and him as well), it'll also cause significant changes to the region he inhabits, drastically & continually increasing expenditures on infrastructure & new, otherwise unneeded techonology & adaptation, quite possibly for several hundreds of years.


Well technically your very existance is affecting the course of the unvierse. But so does the position of an electron. Doesn't mean your having the impact you think you are. Man is not bigger than nature.Define nature.
If you mean the universe, you're right. If you mean Earth, you couldn't be more wrong. We can blow the damn atmosphere right off the planet if we want. That'd obliterate everything we normally call nature.

Well technically your very existance is affecting the course of the unvierse. But so does the position of an electron. Doesn't mean your having the impact you think you are. Man is not bigger than nature.

Chaos theory!!!!111 :eek:

Define nature.
If you mean the universe, you're right. If you mean Earth, you couldn't be more wrong. We can blow the damn atmosphere right off the planet if we want. That'd obliterate everything we normally call nature.
Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.
Planets are giant and ancient things.

Has any nation with a free press ever experienced famine?

Ever wonder if there's a connection there?
The exact same connection as in the question, "Has anyone who has ever worn blue underwear ever been hit by lightning?"

I never owned a car. Does that count?

Muravyets is correct. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Just because there is a correlation between things does not mean that one is influencing the other or that they are related in any way.

I never owned a car. Does that count?
I hope so, because I've never owned one, either.

I hope so, because I've never owned one, either.
i own one.

Muravyets is correct. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Just because there is a correlation between things does not mean that one is influencing the other or that they are related in any way.
Which is why I do not deny that the arguments about global warming are all theoretical. I choose to err on the side of caution and avoid as much as possible those things that theories suggest contribute to it, but I cannot know if I'm having any effect or not. I just figure better safe than sorry.

On the other hand, there is proven causation between negative effects on human health and the kinds of pollution that may contribute to global warming, so to me all this debate about what we're doing to the globe is merely sidestepping the question of what we're doing to ourselves. By conserving energy and reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions, we will provide ourselves with a cleaner environment, which is good enough a goal for me.

Planets are giant and ancient things.Which is why you need to define what you meant. If nature's defined as "life as we know it" and bigger is defined as "being able to casually destroy most of it by pure inaction", then man is bigger than nature. If you mean splitting the universe, or just the Moon or Earth in half, then man isn't bigger.

It's easy enough to turn this planet into a slag heap from a human perspective. We're doing it already by simple inaction, and a determined effort on our part could accomplish it inside a day. Destroying life or just the bulk of current life, is quite easy. Life/current life is not the same thing as the continued existence of this particular ball of elements. But nice red fish you had hooked there.

I don't believe in global warming, because I don't think we have enough data. The earth is billions of years old and like everything else in the universe goes through cycles. The increasing heat we are experiencing is probably just one step in the cycle. Yes, climates are getting hotter, and it could be due to the excessive use of fossil fuels, but the damage is already done. It will take millions of years to replenish the ozone, because it took millions of years to form. Why try to do anything about it? By the time it's back, humans won't be humans any more so I'm not worried.

I don't believe in global warming, because I don't think we have enough data. The earth is billions of years old and like everything else in the universe goes through cycles. The increasing heat we are experiencing is probably just one step in the cycle. Yes, climates are getting hotter, and it could be due to the excessive use of fossil fuels, but the damage is already done. It will take millions of years to replenish the ozone, because it took millions of years to form. Why try to do anything about it? By the time it's back, humans won't be humans any more so I'm not worried.There's plenty of data linking CO2 concentrations to average temperature. And the same data shows cycles in the past. However, in our modern day, that cycle has been broken: CO2 emissions today are much higher than they should be, if we were in a cycle.

Also, I think you got global warming and ozone depletion mixed up. If people had the same laissez faire outlook on environmental protection in the days we banned CFCs, the ozone hole would be much, much wider.

There's plenty of data linking CO2 concentrations to average temperature. And the same data shows cycles in the past. However, in our modern day, that cycle has been broken: CO2 emissions today are much higher than they should be, if we were in a cycle.

Also, I think you got global warming and ozone depletion mixed up. If people had the same laissez faire outlook on environmental protection in the days we banned CFCs, the ozone hole would be much, much wider.
Indeed, after CFCs were banned the ozone hole began to shrink at a much faster rate than expected. It just goes to show that small adjustments can have big effects. It was similar with the recovery rates of ocean bird populations after the banning of DDT. That's why it bothers me when people say they don't do anything to try to conserve energy and live greener because their little contribution won't make a difference. It will. It definitely will.

For instance, someone once posted a thread about how ASHRAE (I think that's the name), which is the trade organization for heating and cooling engineers in the US, announced at their annual convention this year that the organization will be adopting a new mission statement to develop and promote greener heating and cooling system technology for use in residential and commercial buildings. Heating and cooling of buildings accounts for an enormous amount of fuel consumption annually. Changing it could have a profound and nearly immediate effect, not only environmentally but economically as well. Property owners can help this along by contracting with companies that use ASHRAE-approved technology and updating old systems to new systems as they become available. Likewise, consumers can apply pressure to car manufacturers to keep up the drive for more and more fuel efficiency, which can also have a remarkable effect. For instance, the city of Boston just announced that they will be replacing over time (by attrition) the city's taxi fleet, changing from Crown Vics to a hybrid model because a Boston artist, who was advocating the switch, proved its effectiveness by following a taxi on its shifts in his Honda hybrid for several days and proving that, for every 10 gallons of gas burned by the Crown Vic, the hybrid only burned 3 gallons. That's a significant difference per car, and multiplied by how many millions of cars -- the effect that private individuals can have if they shift themselves to do anything at all could be just what we need.

Indeed, after CFCs were banned the ozone hole began to shrink at a much faster rate than expected.Actually, as far as I know, it's still widening. CFCs have a damn long residence time in the stratosphere. But consider that if it's still widening a bit now, how bad would things be if we were still emitting zounds of CFCs? It's going to be a while before the ozone hole gets better, but it will eventually.
CO2 has a residence time of about 50 years. It'll be a while before that gets to "normal" too. The sooner we stop harmful practices, the sooner things will get better, and the less expensive alternatives and countermeasures will be.

Actually, as far as I know, it's still widening. CFCs have a damn long residence time in the stratosphere. But consider that if it's still widening a bit now, how bad would things be if we were still emitting zounds of CFCs? It's going to be a while before the ozone hole gets better, but it will eventually.
CO2 has a residence time of about 50 years. It'll be a while before that gets to "normal" too. The sooner we stop harmful practices, the sooner things will get better, and the less expensive alternatives and countermeasures will be.
It started widening again recently (in the last 6+ years), but immediately after the banning of CFCs, the hole reduced by a rate approximately 10 times faster than predicted. However, since that progress was made, there has been steady increase in ozone depleting pollutants emitted from developing countries who work at a much lower and dirtier level of industrial development. We've also seen rollback of US Clean Air Act requirements. Turns out the effects are quick in both directions. The point is, the less crap we put into the air, the faster the improvement to the environment will be. Will it be an immediate transformation? No, but it won't be a "do it for the 7th generation" thing, either.

It started widening again recently (in the last 6+ years), but immediately after the banning of CFCs, the hole reduced by a rate approximately 10 times faster than predicted. However, since that progress was made, there has been steady increase in ozone depleting pollutants emitted from developing countries who work at a much lower and dirtier level of industrial development. We've also seen rollback of US Clean Air Act requirements. Turns out the effects are quick in both directions.Ah, yeah. "Clear Skies"... Bush knows how to reward criminals, doesn't he? Luckily, I live in the Northern Hemisphere. Without a polar vortex, an ozone hole above the north pole won't be as nasty as the one above the south pole.

Is global warming your problem? If it is, should you try and do something about it? Please answer honestly in the poll, because I want to know how many people truly care.

Today, I was talking to a friend, and I asked her if she would like to go see "An Inconvenient Truth" with me. She said she would go if she had to, but she had no interest in it. This was followed by the title statement: "Global warming is not my problem." She went on to say. "I don't care the world is getting screwed up. It's not like it's going to explode while I'm alive. Why should I care?" Recently she has been getting on my nerves, and what little respect I had left for her evaporated. This is a girl whose goal in life is to have and raise children. As much as I find that goal pointless, I have not held it against her. Yet, what she said about global warming not being her problem, it's in full contradiction with her goal. If her life revolves around her possible future children, shouldn't she care that she's condemning them to a hellish life? Now, this is someone who believes global warming is real, but just doesn't care. I guess you learn something new everyday.



Your friend is a moron. Global Warming will certainly be a problem for her children, and thus, if she wants to be a good mother, it is by extension, her problem.

Ah, yeah. "Clear Skies"... Bush knows how to reward criminals, doesn't he?
He appeals to his base.

Luckily, I live in the Northern Hemisphere. Without a polar vortex, an ozone hole above the north pole won't be as nasty as the one above the south pole.
Me, too. We may not die of skin cancer, but at least we'll have fun swimming with the last of the polar bears.

Well technically your very existance is affecting the course of the unvierse. But so does the position of an electron. Doesn't mean your having the impact you think you are. Man is not bigger than nature.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/11/odd_ideas_emerge_in_global_war.php

If things like this are suggested, wouldn't that make man larger than nature? At least in one respect. Like the million other respects we've proven larger than nature. Not to say that nature doesn't have her share (most probably larger share) of winnings.