It's obvious that a warming trend started about 12,500 years ago when the Laurentide ice sheet finally melted. The last ice age may not have even ended yet. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
Doug, I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are natural changes in the environment over time. Although, I'm not sure how anyone can logically dispute the fact that burning millions of years worth of carbon in such a short period of time does speed up the processes.
If a single volcano can have an impact why is it such a leap to believe simular man made activty could as well.
The earth was at one time or more than one time, entirely covered by ice. The earth has also been a swampy, hot planet in the past. No matter what we do, climate changes will occur and this area will be covered in ice once again.
Humans are so self important but the earth just does what it has done for billions of years. I think we'd be better off learning how to adjust to the changes than trying to think we can ultimately control the changes.
I'm more concerned with the fact that we have polluted the earth with persistent chemicals that have found their way to the top of the food chain than I am with climate change. I'm sure that we have had "some" degree of impact upon the climate but it's difficult to prove to what degree.
The fact is, if we don't want to live like cavemen, we need energy from some source and right now the source we have is carbon based fuels. There are no other "alternative" sources that are financially viable, other than nuclear energy. Personally, I wish more nuclear facilities were put into operation and I'm hopeful that fusion technology can be harnessed at some point in the future.
I'll agree, Doug that the pollution man has caused is of much more concern than our effect on global climate, although I believe they are intertwined. Also, agree that we have some impact on it and it is hard to prove how much. I can't understand though how anyone can think we have had no effect at all on the Earth's climate, that's just plain ridiculous. The population keeps on growing of humans and of most every other species. We all put out energy and body heat, so it has to have an effect of some degree just by the fact of us all being here. Hell, we even paid for a study of the effect of cow flatulence on the ozone layer, never saw the results. God made us stewards of the earth, we are supposed to be taking care of it not trashing it, while at the same time using the earth to sustain our existence. God also gave us the intellect to be able to figure out how to accomplish both.
Well, while that is true Peter, moisture builds in the air until excess water vapor turns into rain or snow and drops from the clouds back to the earth, it's a cycle. Carbon Dioxide does not, it remains as a gas & it continues to build and becomes more dense over the earth, it blocks some of the release of infrared rays which the earth radiates due to the sun's heating by it's radiation. When radiation is blocked it disperses downward, thereby heating the atmosphere and the earth more than if there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. You can't quantify the effects as you did above, it's like having a dirty, clogged fuel filter in your car, the amount of dirt in it is miniscule compared to the 15 gallons of gas in the tank, but it slows the flow.
Doug Yeomans is 100% right, only smart one here .north pole once was tropical with out man to blame and it will be again.we need to adjust to the changes and stop beleaving in that stupid Gore
What I fear the most about the issue of global warming is trillions of dollars being siphoned off the world economy and thrown haphazardly at a poorly understood, highly politicized problem under the guise of saving the planet. In reality, the only success seems to be an economic one for those on the receiving end of money.
Would Al Gore be as vehiment in his crusade if he didn't own the patent rights to the trading platform for carbon offset credits on the CCX?
Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote a very thought provoking essay on the debate over global warming. In it he acknowledges that it is possible to have two plausible arguments leading to opposite conclusions; whereas, the only rational response is to admit ignorance.
It's rare to read a piece about a topic as contentious as this where the writer is not pushing an adenda.
Global warming, I mean cooling, I mean climate change, I mean warming...that's right, it's back to warming again, is yet another example of backwards science. Starting with a conclusion and force feeding, manipulating, or flat out making up data to support the conclusion and then presenting it as mainstream and marginalizing anyone who disagrees with it as ignorant and uneducated.
It's obvious that a warming
It's obvious that a warming trend started about 12,500 years ago when the Laurentide ice sheet finally melted. The last ice age may not have even ended yet. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
Doug, I don't think anyone
Doug, I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there are natural changes in the environment over time. Although, I'm not sure how anyone can logically dispute the fact that burning millions of years worth of carbon in such a short period of time does speed up the processes.
If a single volcano can have an impact why is it such a leap to believe simular man made activty could as well.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/
The earth was at one time or
The earth was at one time or more than one time, entirely covered by ice. The earth has also been a swampy, hot planet in the past. No matter what we do, climate changes will occur and this area will be covered in ice once again.
Humans are so self important but the earth just does what it has done for billions of years. I think we'd be better off learning how to adjust to the changes than trying to think we can ultimately control the changes.
I'm more concerned with the fact that we have polluted the earth with persistent chemicals that have found their way to the top of the food chain than I am with climate change. I'm sure that we have had "some" degree of impact upon the climate but it's difficult to prove to what degree.
The fact is, if we don't want to live like cavemen, we need energy from some source and right now the source we have is carbon based fuels. There are no other "alternative" sources that are financially viable, other than nuclear energy. Personally, I wish more nuclear facilities were put into operation and I'm hopeful that fusion technology can be harnessed at some point in the future.
I'll agree, Doug that the
I'll agree, Doug that the pollution man has caused is of much more concern than our effect on global climate, although I believe they are intertwined. Also, agree that we have some impact on it and it is hard to prove how much. I can't understand though how anyone can think we have had no effect at all on the Earth's climate, that's just plain ridiculous. The population keeps on growing of humans and of most every other species. We all put out energy and body heat, so it has to have an effect of some degree just by the fact of us all being here. Hell, we even paid for a study of the effect of cow flatulence on the ozone layer, never saw the results. God made us stewards of the earth, we are supposed to be taking care of it not trashing it, while at the same time using the earth to sustain our existence. God also gave us the intellect to be able to figure out how to accomplish both.
What is missing from global
What is missing from global warming models? WATER VAPOR!
The Number 1 greenhouse gas.
CO2 makes up 390 parts per million of the atmosphere. In other words if you had 1 million (1,000,000) dollar bills, CO2 would be $390
1000000
vs
0000390
You really think that is affecting us much?
Well, while that is true
Well, while that is true Peter, moisture builds in the air until excess water vapor turns into rain or snow and drops from the clouds back to the earth, it's a cycle. Carbon Dioxide does not, it remains as a gas & it continues to build and becomes more dense over the earth, it blocks some of the release of infrared rays which the earth radiates due to the sun's heating by it's radiation. When radiation is blocked it disperses downward, thereby heating the atmosphere and the earth more than if there was less CO2 in the atmosphere. You can't quantify the effects as you did above, it's like having a dirty, clogged fuel filter in your car, the amount of dirt in it is miniscule compared to the 15 gallons of gas in the tank, but it slows the flow.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-gre…
Doug Yeomans is 100% right,
Doug Yeomans is 100% right, only smart one here .north pole once was tropical with out man to blame and it will be again.we need to adjust to the changes and stop beleaving in that stupid Gore
Global warming = Climate, not
Global warming = Climate, not weather. Something a lot of people don't understand. Anyway temperatures are rising.
What I fear the most about
What I fear the most about the issue of global warming is trillions of dollars being siphoned off the world economy and thrown haphazardly at a poorly understood, highly politicized problem under the guise of saving the planet. In reality, the only success seems to be an economic one for those on the receiving end of money.
Would Al Gore be as vehiment in his crusade if he didn't own the patent rights to the trading platform for carbon offset credits on the CCX?
Physicist Freeman Dyson wrote a very thought provoking essay on the debate over global warming. In it he acknowledges that it is possible to have two plausible arguments leading to opposite conclusions; whereas, the only rational response is to admit ignorance.
It's rare to read a piece about a topic as contentious as this where the writer is not pushing an adenda.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
Global warming, I mean
Global warming, I mean cooling, I mean climate change, I mean warming...that's right, it's back to warming again, is yet another example of backwards science. Starting with a conclusion and force feeding, manipulating, or flat out making up data to support the conclusion and then presenting it as mainstream and marginalizing anyone who disagrees with it as ignorant and uneducated.
154 people are unable or
154 people are unable or unwilling to read graphs....
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
http://zfacts.com/p/226.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
http://www.planetseed.com/node/15221