Quote:


215'!  Good thing I'm moving away from the beach and up to the Sierra.

Here's what I don't get:

Who cares if the globe is warming, cooling or staying the same? It's all part of a geologic cycle. There is evidence galore that the earth has gone through other, more severe periods of warming and cooling. We're still here. Plants and animals are still here. They go extinct all the time. And new ones are discovered all the time, too. And I could sit in my house and mess around with the thermostat in an attempt to be able to notice a one-tenth of a degree difference in the temperature without success.

And finally on to the part I REALLY don't get:

Nobody can prove or disprove the fact that mankind has any significant impact on the ongoing geologic cycle of warming and cooling. Doesn't it require a huge leap of faith in one direction or the other to subscribe to either philosophy? Kind of like joining a church and reciting a creed.

Erring on the side of caution is one thing; this is why most prudent people throw their trash in a trashcan, drive cars that get semi-decent mileage, don't dump paint thinner into the sewer, etc.

But giving up a car for a bike, throwing away your refrigerator, etc. - that's all guilt driven.

Let me ask this: If Al Gore suddenly decides that global warming has reversed itself, should we all idle our cars to warm the place up a little? It is pretentious for him to claim to know the answers that even men of science cannot agree on.

    Sorry Ueli but the North Pole has already been clear of ice in the summer. first time I remember it happening was in 87. Been there, did'nt get the T-Shirt. I believe its happened before that and I've seen it once since and heard of it a few times. But I can only say it happened twice that I personaly saw it. There is no reason for me to go that far North as a rule. Whether it has jack all to do with climate change I don't know. But up North it is considered rare, but not unknown to happen. In 1935 3 ships got crushed thinking that they had a clear shot one Summer going by the Pole. They were wrong.

Those that know me know I stay out of politics as it consists of people shouting, hoping if they shout loud and long enough..they'll change someone elses minds. When the other person is too busy thinking about what their next comeback will be....to even listen to what is being shouted.

What worries me about climate change:

.....if you are a republican you are required to believe it's all bull$hit, if you are a Democrat, you are required to believe it's gospel. Anytime something becomes polarized along party lines, I worry about the chances of any progress being made at discovering the truth.

Joe....who will be long gone in 50-75 years but worries about what I'll leave my kids.

Kevin_M wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 6:09pm:

I think that is what Paul is getting at, that the sun is to blame for global cooling.  He believes global cooling is happening, not global warming.  I tend to lean toward that direction myself, as the earth is due for it. 

As for how much of an impact humans have on the climate, I'm sure we have some, but to be totally responsible for it makes for huge egos.

Either way, I do what I can to leave less of a footprint.

Wow, I think I will stay out of this discussion and veer left.


                                     Lee      

             

You better Lee. I'm keeping my eye on you.

Trying to globally legislate carbon limits is akin to outlawing volcanic eruptions....or better yet, eliminating earmarks from the budget. It's not going to happen.

Our dear Planet is overpopulated and it is directly linked our utilization of the stored energy in fossil fuels. Period.

Once we use it up to the point of it becoming the new Gold, it will be over. Then you will begin to see massive deforestation that will make the destruction of the Rain Forest in South America look like a blip.

Massive die-off and wars will follow. Our Planet will shed the weak of us off like a abusive parasite and She will continue to orbit around our Star as if nothing happened.

Don't worry about it. Change is the only constant.

Have a nice day.

Steve G

Brew wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 4:57pm:


Well put Brew.  The tide of scientific debate is turning.  The term "Global Warming" has already morphed into "Climate Change" because the evidence for man made global warming is unsound.  More and more scientists are coming forward to dispute man is the driving force behind global warming.  Evidence is emerging from core samples and other paleo-climatic studies that show CO2 increase lags the warming periods the earth has seen and is in fact a result of warming, not the cause.  We are still coming out of an ice age that peaked 1,000s of years ago.

-P.

Paul98 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 5:32am:


No, that is a ridiculous claim.  There have always been a variety of terms - greenhouse effect, hot house effect, global change, global warming, climate change, etc. The fact that one of these is used more often than another does not signify anything about the evidence or science. That is like saying that the reason that race relations in America changed is because people switched from using the word 'negro' to 'colored' to 'black' to 'African American'.  At best, such changes in the languages reflect slight changes in perception. Language changes all the time.

The term climate change has become more popular for several reasons.  The changes that are predicted involve more than warming - the tropics will see more rain, while many temperate areas will see an expansion of deserts. Using the word 'climate' also emphasizes the fact that the changes are long term and on average ... many in the general populace hear other terms and assume there will be a constant, even warming everywhere, which is not what the climatologists intended to communicate. The term 'warming' gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling; that is an obvious mis-communication if someone is concerned about sea levels rising several feet, or reduced food production when the human population is headed to ten billion.

Paul98 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 5:32am:


Well, the minority of scientists who think that humans can have no effect on climate are getting better organized and more vocal, but that is due in no small part to economic and political support (as others have pointed out in previous posts).   

And that statement attempts to frame the debate in terms of a straw-man argument. Most climatologists do not say that man is the 'driving force' behind climate or climate change.  A more reasonable position is that that burning fossil fuel that took millions of years to accumulate in a century or two will pump up the carbon in the atmosphere, and this will cause heat to be retained in the atmosphere, which will change the climate, leading to a variety of consequences (many of which are rather negative).   

Paul98 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 5:32am:


This lag does not disprove the simple, testable hypothesis that carbon (CO2 and methane and chlorocarbons) increase heat retention in the atmosphere (which is undoubtedly true).  It does negate the observation that CO2 and methane levels are rising due to human activity. There is no reason to assume that these changes will not lead to increased heat retention in the environment. The only valid scientific questions are how much, and how fast.

The fact that there has been a variable lag between CO2 and temperature in the historical record only proves that there is multiple causation in a complex system. The fact that one cause is sometimes a secondary cause does not mean that it cannot be a primary cause under other circumstances - like the rapid release of carbon that was accumulated over millions of years.

10, 50 and 100 million years ago, human contributions to erosion were insignificant. That historical record does not mean that human impacts on erosion today can be ignored - in most places, where there are people, the accelerated erosion is tied to human affairs. That does not mean that soil conservationists deny the fact that erosion can be a natural process.   

CO2 lags do not disprove the idea that human activity is leading to climate change; this argument has been discussed and dissected at length; it is not true. Here is one good article on that:

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Nobody's answered my question: What is the perfect temperature for the earth?

Once I know this, and since the fluctuation is caused by man, I can do my part to either help warm or cool things a little.