Has anyone seen “Not Evil, Just Wrong?” Great documentary on climate change (and they also take stabs at Al Gore). I highly recommend it.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
You say there is more green house gasses then previous yet we have been cooling for 11 years.
Please admit that you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about: admit you have no scientific background, you heard that info in a fox article, and the very idea of having to change your habits to save the environment makes you angry.
I don’t mean to be a dick man, but from my position I know that you don’t know jack about the science behind this. Here’s a quote that should dispel the majority of the discussion in this forum pretty quick. It’s from a peer reviewed article.
It is highly questionable whether this â??pauseâ?? (of global warming) is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 �ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 �ºC per decade â?? just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
I’ll say it again. Science shows global warming is real. Warming could also potentially be a huge problem. What’s causing it and what we can do about are the only thing we can deal with.[/quote]
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
[quote]John S. wrote:
30,000 scientist to sue Al Gore over this Hoax. Including the creator of the Weather Channel. If only he would have taken some science classes.
You misinterpreted the information. Around 30,000 wish to formally debate global warming with Al Gore and a core of supporters. They aren’t suing him for lying so much as ignoring them, which isn’t really grounds for a court case. Probably why it hasn’t gotten a lot of press.
Also, I will mention that around 90% of scientists know that the earth is warming. 82% believe that mankind has something to do with it. Those 30,000 scientists would be debating with over 100,000 scientists supporting global warming. You don’t have much credibility to your claim that this is a hoax.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
You say there is more green house gasses then previous yet we have been cooling for 11 years.
Please admit that you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about: admit you have no scientific background, you heard that info in a fox article, and the very idea of having to change your habits to save the environment makes you angry.
I don’t mean to be a dick man, but from my position I know that you don’t know jack about the science behind this. Here’s a quote that should dispel the majority of the discussion in this forum pretty quick. It’s from a peer reviewed article.
It is highly questionable whether this �¢??pause�¢?? (of global warming) is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 �?�ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 �?�ºC per decade �¢?? just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
I’ll say it again. Science shows global warming is real. Warming could also potentially be a huge problem. What’s causing it and what we can do about are the only thing we can deal with.
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
[/quote]
You have stated a lot of common myths surrounding global warming.
-
The earth has done this before, it is natural.
With modern science, we have the ability to determine the temperature and composition of the air thousands of years into the past by drilling into the ice in the poles. The data shows that in the last few 100,000 years, the earth has never been as warm as it is now. That’s a pretty remarkable statement, i wonder what species has made big changes to the earth in that time frame? -
It can’t be our fault, science hasn’t proved that we are the cause of global warming.
That’s true, it would be pretty hard to conclusively show that we are the sole cause of the earths warming. However, using that as an excuse to maintain our horrendous levels of efficiency, amounts of consumption, and dependance on oil in tjis country is insane. If anything, global warming has the potential to motivate us to make changes that are necessary. -
The sun is warming, it’s not us.
Bubububullshit. This was a theory proposed not too long ago as another way to suggest that there is absolutley nothing we can do about global warming. If you can find one peer reviewed article that tracks the temp of the earth steadily increasing as the temp of the sun increases I will concede to you on this point.
What do all these myths add up to? The reason why many people don’t wish to support global warming is because it would require them to change their daily life. Solving global warming would require us to eat more vegetables, eat less meat, drive less, and require our industry’s to become much more efficient. Oddly enough, rejection of this plan is supported by both christianity which tells us that the environment is at the disposal of mankind, and neoconservatism which grants freedom to large industries. If we are to see a day when the world is healthy, we must realize the checks to mankinds growth are in fact environmentalism and limited industrial regulations, lest we develop into a hideous deformed monster.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
You say there is more green house gasses then previous yet we have been cooling for 11 years.
Please admit that you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about: admit you have no scientific background, you heard that info in a fox article, and the very idea of having to change your habits to save the environment makes you angry.
I don’t mean to be a dick man, but from my position I know that you don’t know jack about the science behind this. Here’s a quote that should dispel the majority of the discussion in this forum pretty quick. It’s from a peer reviewed article.
It is highly questionable whether this �??�?�¢??pause�??�?�¢?? (of global warming) is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 �??�??�?�ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 �??�??�?�ºC per decade �??�?�¢?? just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
I’ll say it again. Science shows global warming is real. Warming could also potentially be a huge problem. What’s causing it and what we can do about are the only thing we can deal with.
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
You have stated a lot of common myths surrounding global warming.
-
The earth has done this before, it is natural.
With modern science, we have the ability to determine the temperature and composition of the air thousands of years into the past by drilling into the ice in the poles. The data shows that in the last few 100,000 years, the earth has never been as warm as it is now. That’s a pretty remarkable statement, i wonder what species has made big changes to the earth in that time frame? -
It can’t be our fault, science hasn’t proved that we are the cause of global warming.
That’s true, it would be pretty hard to conclusively show that we are the sole cause of the earths warming. However, using that as an excuse to maintain our horrendous levels of efficiency, amounts of consumption, and dependance on oil in tjis country is insane. If anything, global warming has the potential to motivate us to make changes that are necessary. -
The sun is warming, it’s not us.
Bubububullshit. This was a theory proposed not too long ago as another way to suggest that there is absolutley nothing we can do about global warming. If you can find one peer reviewed article that tracks the temp of the earth steadily increasing as the temp of the sun increases I will concede to you on this point.
What do all these myths add up to? The reason why many people don’t wish to support global warming is because it would require them to change their daily life. Solving global warming would require us to eat more vegetables, eat less meat, drive less, and require our industry’s to become much more efficient. Oddly enough, rejection of this plan is supported by both christianity which tells us that the environment is at the disposal of mankind, and neoconservatism which grants freedom to large industries. If we are to see a day when the world is healthy, we must realize the checks to mankinds growth are in fact environmentalism and limited industrial regulations, lest we develop into a hideous deformed monster.[/quote]
I totally agree with Schlenkatank, very well said, and he’s got the cajones to say it. I just want to clarify my initial point, and I have said this way back earlier in this debate, the sun is a star, it’s cooling off. Yes, there may be greater luminosity at some points in the chart, perhaps due to a depleted ozone, probably caused by antropogenic global warming. Yes, global warming is a good thing, excessive global warming is not, such as the graph shows, it may be causing a thermal runaway problem and that’s what scientists need to prove and are concerned about. Overall, we (all humans, all countries, stop blaming the US for all your problems) do live carelessly with regard to pollution, gross energy inefficiencies, etc, much of it due to lax laws that these same politicans (in all countries) passed years ago. In fact, most of them were against nuclear power 20 years ago. It’s possible that some new physics will solve our future problems, and I would bet on nuclear, and maybe some new physics to reverse radioactive ocntaminants.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
You say there is more green house gasses then previous yet we have been cooling for 11 years.
Please admit that you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about: admit you have no scientific background, you heard that info in a fox article, and the very idea of having to change your habits to save the environment makes you angry.
I don’t mean to be a dick man, but from my position I know that you don’t know jack about the science behind this. Here’s a quote that should dispel the majority of the discussion in this forum pretty quick. It’s from a peer reviewed article.
It is highly questionable whether this �¢??pause�¢?? (of global warming) is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 �?�ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 �?�ºC per decade �¢?? just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
I’ll say it again. Science shows global warming is real. Warming could also potentially be a huge problem. What’s causing it and what we can do about are the only thing we can deal with.
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
[/quote]
you won’t find many scientists that will support that graph of yours either. If you found that in a peer reviewed study i would like to know which one.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
You have stated a lot of common myths surrounding global warming.
- The earth has done this before, it is natural.
With modern science, we have the ability to determine the temperature and composition of the air thousands of years into the past by drilling into the ice in the poles. The data shows that in the last few 100,000 years, the earth has never been as warm as it is now. That’s a pretty remarkable statement, i wonder what species has made big changes to the earth in that time frame?[/quote]
The earth was warmer in 1100BC than it is now, did humans cause that also? [quote]
-
It can’t be our fault, science hasn’t proved that we are the cause of global warming.
That’s true, it would be pretty hard to conclusively show that we are the sole cause of the earths warming. However, using that as an excuse to maintain our horrendous levels of efficiency, amounts of consumption, and dependance on oil in tjis country is insane. If anything, global warming has the potential to motivate us to make changes that are necessary. [/quote]
Like taxing business to death, raising our utility bills dramatically, decreasing our standard of living (while Algore gets richer) all based on a maybe? [quote] -
The sun is warming, it’s not us.
Bubububullshit. This was a theory proposed not too long ago as another way to suggest that there is absolutley nothing we can do about global warming. If you can find one peer reviewed article that tracks the temp of the earth steadily increasing as the temp of the sun increases I will concede to you on this point. [/quote]
It’s not the temperature of the sun, it’s the solar activity, Google Maunder Minimum and little ice age for evidence. [quote]
What do all these myths add up to? The reason why many people don’t wish to support global warming is because it would require them to change their daily life. Solving global warming would require us to eat more vegetables, eat less meat, drive less, and require our industry’s to become much more efficient. Oddly enough, rejection of this plan is supported by both christianity which tells us that the environment is at the disposal of mankind, and neoconservatism which grants freedom to large industries. If we are to see a day when the world is healthy, we must realize the checks to mankinds growth are in fact environmentalism and limited industrial regulations, lest we develop into a hideous deformed monster.[/quote]
What this all adds up to is that science cannot explain what causes the climate to change. Before we make drastic policy changes, shouldn’t we understand what the facts are?
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
You say there is more green house gasses then previous yet we have been cooling for 11 years.
Please admit that you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about: admit you have no scientific background, you heard that info in a fox article, and the very idea of having to change your habits to save the environment makes you angry.
I don’t mean to be a dick man, but from my position I know that you don’t know jack about the science behind this. Here’s a quote that should dispel the majority of the discussion in this forum pretty quick. It’s from a peer reviewed article.
It is highly questionable whether this �?�¢??pause�?�¢?? (of global warming) is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 �??�?�ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 �??�?�ºC per decade �?�¢?? just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.
I’ll say it again. Science shows global warming is real. Warming could also potentially be a huge problem. What’s causing it and what we can do about are the only thing we can deal with.
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
you won’t find many scientists that will support that graph of yours either. If you found that in a peer reviewed study i would like to know which one.
[/quote]
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.
Nature 399: 429-436.
And for those who may not know and might have some reflexive desire to assume, well, the above cannot be a legit source: Nature is at the very high end of thoroughly respected peer-reviewed journals.
Schlenkatank you are pathetic. If you seriously believe the bullshit you gurgle up then do us all a favor and get off of your man-made computer, which was built in a factory that no doubt was much too inefficient for your or the atmosphere’s liking, then relocate your family to a fertile piece of land in the forest, start a farming commune, but make sure not to cut down any trees because that would be world-ending, and then start masturbating to the image of Al Gore, but you will have to use a mental picture because it would be environmentally irresponsible to use a photo printed on paper which was so evilly ripped from Mother Earth’s weak and unable grasps. You pompous prick.
This whole global warming sham is nothing more than the product of extreme human arrogance. How self important do you have to be to think that humans could actually ruin the "untouchably delicate balance " of AN ENTIRE PLANET. So what if humans have caused a 0.1% of 1 degree increase in temperature (or whatever Manbearpigger says). Do you honestly think that matters AT ALL in the future of the PLANET. Maybe I’m not stressing it enough. It’s a FUCKING PLANET. It is so much bigger (literally and figuratively) than us humans that just thinking about it makes my eyes bleed. If you actually cared about the environment and about things taking their “natural” course, then you would realize that humans are PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT and that humans are PART OF NATURE. No matter which way you put it, it all boils down to people like Schlenkatank thinking it is actually beneficial to take their presumptuous “moral highground” to defend something (a FUCKING PLANET) that is pitifully indefensible and oh-so-clearly theirs (and has been and always will be, of course).
Fuck you Schlenkatank. I officially have deep hatred for you.
[quote]Sanitarium wrote:
Schlenkatank you are pathetic. If you seriously believe the bullshit you gurgle up then do us all a favor and get off of your man-made computer, which was built in a factory that no doubt was much too inefficient for your or the atmosphere’s liking, then relocate your family to a fertile piece of land in the forest, start a farming commune, but make sure not to cut down any trees because that would be world-ending, and then start masturbating to the image of Al Gore, but you will have to use a mental picture because it would be environmentally irresponsible to use a photo printed on paper which was so evilly ripped from Mother Earth’s weak and unable grasps. You pompous prick.
This whole global warming sham is nothing more than the product of extreme human arrogance. How self important do you have to be to think that humans could actually ruin the "untouchably delicate balance " of AN ENTIRE PLANET. So what if humans have caused a 0.1% of 1 degree increase in temperature (or whatever Manbearpigger says). Do you honestly think that matters AT ALL in the future of the PLANET. Maybe I’m not stressing it enough. It’s a FUCKING PLANET. It is so much bigger (literally and figuratively) than us humans that just thinking about it makes my eyes bleed. If you actually cared about the environment and about things taking their “natural” course, then you would realize that humans are PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT and that humans are PART OF NATURE. No matter which way you put it, it all boils down to people like Schlenkatank thinking it is actually beneficial to take their presumptuous “moral highground” to defend something (a FUCKING PLANET) that is pitifully indefensible and oh-so-clearly theirs (and has been and always will be, of course).
Fuck you Schlenkatank. I officially have deep hatred for you.[/quote]
You sir, are an example of extreme fucking arrogance!..
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
666Rich wrote:
Interesting how you only present the data that supports your argument and ignore everything else. Science shows the earth has warmed just like it has many times in the past. Science has not been able to show that humans have anything to do with it. Science has shown the the most likely cause (as evidenced by the recent drops in temperature) is solar activity.
You have stated a lot of common myths surrounding global warming.
- The earth has done this before, it is natural.
With modern science, we have the ability to determine the temperature and composition of the air thousands of years into the past by drilling into the ice in the poles. The data shows that in the last few 100,000 years, the earth has never been as warm as it is now. That’s a pretty remarkable statement, i wonder what species has made big changes to the earth in that time frame?
The earth was warmer in 1100BC than it is now, did humans cause that also?
-
It can’t be our fault, science hasn’t proved that we are the cause of global warming.
That’s true, it would be pretty hard to conclusively show that we are the sole cause of the earths warming. However, using that as an excuse to maintain our horrendous levels of efficiency, amounts of consumption, and dependance on oil in tjis country is insane. If anything, global warming has the potential to motivate us to make changes that are necessary.
Like taxing business to death, raising our utility bills dramatically, decreasing our standard of living (while Algore gets richer) all based on a maybe? -
The sun is warming, it’s not us.
Bubububullshit. This was a theory proposed not too long ago as another way to suggest that there is absolutley nothing we can do about global warming. If you can find one peer reviewed article that tracks the temp of the earth steadily increasing as the temp of the sun increases I will concede to you on this point.
It’s not the temperature of the sun, it’s the solar activity, Google Maunder Minimum and little ice age for evidence.
What do all these myths add up to? The reason why many people don’t wish to support global warming is because it would require them to change their daily life. Solving global warming would require us to eat more vegetables, eat less meat, drive less, and require our industry’s to become much more efficient. Oddly enough, rejection of this plan is supported by both christianity which tells us that the environment is at the disposal of mankind, and neoconservatism which grants freedom to large industries. If we are to see a day when the world is healthy, we must realize the checks to mankinds growth are in fact environmentalism and limited industrial regulations, lest we develop into a hideous deformed monster.
What this all adds up to is that science cannot explain what causes the climate to change. Before we make drastic policy changes, shouldn’t we understand what the facts are?
[/quote]
This quote is from the abstract in the article you posted:
" Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. "
So while there may have been some other warming periods in our earths history, if we look back the data shows that this time is significantly higher in co2 and mean temperature than all other periods.
I also didn’t mention anything about taxing business to death. I believe that there should be checks on capitalism that encourage responsibility not maximum profit.
The cooling of the little ice age you mentioned is absolutely miniscule compared to the warming we’ve been dealing with for the past 100 years. It only explains why the earth would warm to it’s normal state after the period, not why it would continue to rapidly warm for the past 100 years.
I absolutely agree with your last point. Because this issue has the inconvenient potential to either be nothing or a huge problem, the scientific community should formally establish what they consider to be the facts on the issue. If everyone can be on the same page it will be a lot easier to make the right political choices that everyone should be comfortable with.
[quote]Sanitarium wrote:
Schlenkatank you are pathetic. If you seriously believe the bullshit you gurgle up then do us all a favor and get off of your man-made computer, which was built in a factory that no doubt was much too inefficient for your or the atmosphere’s liking, then relocate your family to a fertile piece of land in the forest, start a farming commune, but make sure not to cut down any trees because that would be world-ending, and then start masturbating to the image of Al Gore, but you will have to use a mental picture because it would be environmentally irresponsible to use a photo printed on paper which was so evilly ripped from Mother Earth’s weak and unable grasps. You pompous prick.
This whole global warming sham is nothing more than the product of extreme human arrogance. How self important do you have to be to think that humans could actually ruin the "untouchably delicate balance " of AN ENTIRE PLANET. So what if humans have caused a 0.1% of 1 degree increase in temperature (or whatever Manbearpigger says). Do you honestly think that matters AT ALL in the future of the PLANET. Maybe I’m not stressing it enough. It’s a FUCKING PLANET. It is so much bigger (literally and figuratively) than us humans that just thinking about it makes my eyes bleed. If you actually cared about the environment and about things taking their “natural” course, then you would realize that humans are PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT and that humans are PART OF NATURE. No matter which way you put it, it all boils down to people like Schlenkatank thinking it is actually beneficial to take their presumptuous “moral highground” to defend something (a FUCKING PLANET) that is pitifully indefensible and oh-so-clearly theirs (and has been and always will be, of course).
Fuck you Schlenkatank. I officially have deep hatred for you.[/quote]
HA HA, it alright kid take it easy. I wouldn’t get to worked up over the internet, you’d probably like me if we met. I also don’t intend to masturbate to pics of Al Gore any time soon LOL.
In any case, you’d be really surprised at how little our planet has become. “It’s a small world after all”. After studying some of the science behind global warming, I can tell you that even one degree can make a huge difference. It’s why the ice caps are melting and the polar bear population is near extinction.
I would much rather one species became extinct and the ice caps melt than the entire planet enter another ice age…
[quote]Sanitarium wrote:
I would much rather one species became extinct and the ice caps melt than the entire planet enter another ice age…[/quote]
You lost me with that statement, one species?.. How about all species?.. The ice caps melting could very well suggest another ice age. And, contrary to what you said up top, man can very easily affect fragile mother earth. We have polluted every single existing body of water on the planet, and killed and deformed hundreds of species, polar bears just happen to be next on the list.
I wonder how the polar bears managed to make it through the relatively recent period when Greenland was green, and therefore I would think the whole polar region was much warmer than now?
Indeed, if you check that Russian data, you’ll see it’s been warmer than present several times in the past, and polar bears have made it through all of that. (Yes, I have checked: the species is known to have been around that long.)
Did anyone stop and think that more warmth in the Arctic will mean having more up there to eat? Or do people think polar bears are too dumb to do anything but function on ice?
Did anyone check to see the VAST number of islands in the Canadian Arctic and the huge shoreline that potentially could be exposed? It is not as if there is nowhere to go, or that the bears are going to drown.
The real story with polar bears and global warming is that there are people smart enough to know that there are people who can be manipulated by claiming disaster for the polar bear.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
As a geologist, I would not say it is a “hoax”. A few of my professors did climate change core research. There is definatley an anthropogenic effect, the question is how much, and from what data does one really determine this. Climate change does happen naturally to a degree with the Mihlankovitch (sp) cycles, which caused the ice ages and other climate phenomona. However, one cannot dispute their is more anthro green house gasses than previous, greenhouse gasses cause warming. There is also less albedo feedback due to urbanization and more heat is trapped, in a nutshell the urban heat island effect.
[/quote]
I agree with what you’ve written here. “By how much” is the actual question. Given that the earth warms and cools with no external forcing, that’s an extremely tough thing to measure.
There are economic incentives to do this anyway: it’s cheaper on your summer cooling bill. Rooftop gardens create fresh produce. It’s better to look at greenery than to look at concrete.
Global warming or not (and I think the alarmism is fraudulent), people would start doing these things anyway, even for just aesthetic reasons.
[quote]
Saving energy can really be economical.[/quote]
Exactly. Energy efficiency is a productivity booster.
[quote]
Most ethanol ideas are absurd and require way more inputs than outputs. We also are going to need oil for a long time to come, but there are innovative ways to save energy that are not cost intensive and alot more common sense than most of washington would like to admit. But then again, washington and common sense do not coexist.[/quote]
Ethanol is an absurd market distortion caused by agribusinesses lobbying for subsidy monies to be directed their way.
I agree with you: we’ll be using oil for a long time to come, but a lot more efficiently.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wonder how the polar bears managed to make it through the relatively recent period when Greenland was green, and therefore I would think the whole polar region was much warmer than now?
Indeed, if you check that Russian data, you’ll see it’s been warmer than present several times in the past, and polar bears have made it through all of that. (Yes, I have checked: the species is known to have been around that long.)
Did anyone stop and think that more warmth in the Arctic will mean having more up there to eat? Or do people think polar bears are too dumb to do anything but function on ice?
Did anyone check to see the VAST number of islands in the Canadian Arctic and the huge shoreline that potentially could be exposed? It is not as if there is nowhere to go, or that the bears are going to drown.
The real story with polar bears and global warming is that there are people smart enough to know that there are people who can be manipulated by claiming disaster for the polar bear.[/quote]
I like your postitive attitude, as I’ve explained earlier, I think technology will solve most of our future problems. I don’t want anyone to think I’m in the global warming camp or some kind of an alarmist, but it doesn’t look like the polar bear is fairing too well now. If you’ve read my prior posts, you would see that I basically think it’s all geared to some political agenda.
[quote]-SuperMan- wrote:
Sanitarium wrote:
I would much rather one species became extinct and the ice caps melt than the entire planet enter another ice age…
You lost me with that statement, one species?.. How about all species?.. The ice caps melting could very well suggest another ice age. And, contrary to what you said up top, man can very easily affect fragile mother earth. We have polluted every single existing body of water on the planet, and killed and deformed hundreds of species, polar bears just happen to be next on the list. [/quote]
Wait so by your logic:
The Earth is warming, therefore the ice caps are going to melt (and the poor poor polarbears are going to die), therefore an ice age is coming. Yes of course how could I have been so stupid! It should have been clear to me from the beginning that when things get warm, everything freezes over…
You are absolutely ignorant to think that it is wrong for humans to have “killed” hundreds of species. If you knew anything about evolutionary biology, you would understand that, save some meteor strike or other natural disaster, species thrive at the expense of other species. Millions (maybe billions?) of species over the course of life on Earth have died because of other species.
The planet will take care of itself - if we begin to screw up the ecosystem we live in, I’m sure nature will have no problem wiping us out of existance and starting over. Right now I think we’re yet to make a dent in damaging the Earth to where it would be ‘that bad’. It’s a scam, just like swine flu and all that other crap they come up with.
I’m not worried about global warming, but either way, saving evergy and recycling have their place regardless of their impact on the environment.