Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice

Here's the deal: we have less than 150 years of solid climate data. We know temperatures are increasing, the problem is we don't know why or if humans have any part in it (beyond the trivial part of existing) or if we can do anything to stop it. All data from ice cores seems to indicate that we are within variance for our planet, while data collected from astronomers seems to indicate that our planet isn't the only one increasing in temperature.

In short, anything we do to cut our level of pollution may have absolutely zero global effects on the environment.

Now, as has been pointed out, we should condition our response to this based on probability. There is a chance that what we do will help and therefore we should be working to reduce it. Besides, as Simon points out in his Ultimate Resource II, pollution is inefficient. It is in the industry and the world's best interest that we push invention and innovation and find alternative fuel sources. That, however, is a natural consequence of the market: the recent increases in gas prices have led to more people purchasing hybrids and diesels, vehicles which have increased gas milage and pollute less.

That having been said, in the absence of solid evidence that anything we do can make a difference, it is both insane and suicidal for us to sacrifice industry in the name of the environment or to cave into people like Ehrlich, who wouldn't know good science if it fell down and hit him on the head. People who advocate "drastic measures" to save our planet when:

0) We don't know that we are the cause of the problem in the first place.
1) Even granting that we are the problem, we don't know that such drastic measures would do any good.

A measured response (take BP Oil) is acceptable and praiseworthy, but don't. go. overboard.

hm, i heard that before ...
Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this...
;)

anyway, set the global warming thing aside. isn't it fact, that the chemical process of burning gasoline produces, besides the "maybe-global-warming-influencing" CO˛, a lot of other substances, that are far more polluting? hm, my memory of the chemistry lessons back in school aren't the best, maybe i'm remembering things incorrect, but isn't there other stuff thats coming out of our cars that for example destroy the ozone layer?

True is that if Bush would sign this damn Kyoto Pact, pollution would lower (and more than a bit....). But true is that we ALL have to make it change if we don't want our children to live in Chaos.

I'm not really versed enough to give a solid reply but still.

From what I remember hearing and/or reading, the earth is on a warming trend, which could be contributed to a Pole shift which has happened...more than once(?) in earth's history.

Just going by what I heard, but that was almost a year ago, I need to do more research on it.

Basically, the Earth (as far as I'm concerned) is a living organism. Everything on the planet goes towards making it work... that's trees, animals, us, fish, even Republicans. Whatever we manage to do to it, it'll heal after we're gone. We're just a minor infection ;)

Now, we may or may not be responsible for Global Warming. As Lly pointed out we've only a really tiny portion of solid data (150 years is nothing)... recently, scientists have drilled 3 miles into the ice in Antarctica (see? it does exist :p) to produce an ice-core which yielded rough information anout weather and climate for the last 800,000,000 years. I believe this 'data' will be as sketchy as sketchy can be, but as far as modern thinking goes the climate of the Earth seems to be fairly cyclical.

Around 200,000 years ago (if memory serves - I was listening to this on Radio 4 one afternoon) was the last time the climate matched our own circumstances as they are right now. The ice core suggested that things would not get significantly different for 24,000 years at that time. We are currently 12,000 years into the cycle they've 'identified'... which means they wouldn't have predicted another ice-age for a further 12,000 years.

Now, none of this actually proves anything, but the suggestion is that the planet's ticking along quite nicely nomatter what we do to it and will continue to do so, thank you very much. Global Warming was more than likely going to happen anyway (OK, perhaps not at the rate it's happening just now, but hey) If the environment gets sooo bad that we can't survive, then we'll die. Simple. What's good for the Dinosaurs is good for the gander, so to speak. That's just tough, really. Extinction is part of the whole process... There's only an estimated 1% of all of the species that have ever existed present in the world today... And one of them is the budgie. (There's no point in budgies... [/side rant])

So, we could be on the way out... but I bet it won't happen anytime soon. Loony ecologists (note - not the well tempered, level headed ones, but the lunatic fringe who keep squealing that we'll run out of air in 12 weeks time if we don't all live on lentils and learn to play the sitar) would have you believe that an area of Rainforest the size of Wales is being destroyed every day or somesuch. That's bullshit - for the length of time they've been making suck claims, they could have deforested every square inch of the Earth twice - even the bits that didn't have any forest on them.

If we're gonna get taken out by the environment, I'm betting that it'll take thousands rather than tens of years. And that's an amazingly quick rate in evolutionary terms.

The key is moderation, as it is with all things. Everyone just needs to take a deep breath, realise that the Sun still shines and the World is still turning... The Day After Tomorrow was just a movie... It's OK...

But that doesn't mean we should burn Oil like it's never gonna run out - because it will. Let's just try to eek another 40 odd years out of it to give us time to develop Cold Fusion properly... Then we'll be laughing :)

The key is moderation, as it is with all things. Everyone just needs to take a deep breath, realise that the Sun still shines and the World is still turning... The Day After Tomorrow was just a movie... It's OK...
I think Someone needs to tell that to Al Gore and the people over at moveon.org.
:p

Moderation? With 10 m/g cars....... I'm not sure we're talking about the same moderation lol

"We're all so worried about the Earth. Like we're gonna hurt the Earth? It's been around for millions of years; we've been here for mere thousands. The Earth was here before us, and it'll be here after us, and if it really wanted to it could shake us off like a bad case of fleas."

~George Carlin~

True is that if Bush would sign this damn Kyoto Pact, pollution would lower (and more than a bit....). But true is that we ALL have to make it change if we don't want our children to live in Chaos.
Bush was right to back out of Kyoto. He could have done it in a more diplomatic way, but the stepping out was a good thing.

Kyoto was beyond repair. It would have damaged industrialized nations--the US more than any other--and it was an extreme measure, not a thoughtful or well laid out one.

Bush was right to back out of Kyoto. He could have done it in a more diplomatic way, but the stepping out was a good thing.

Kyoto was beyond repair. It would have damaged industrialized nations--the US more than any other--and it was an extreme measure, not a thoughtful or well laid out one.


how can you say such a thing? Why most countries sign it then? http://forums.megadeth.com/images/smilies/shakehead.gif

Of course it would have been an extreme measure for the US..... But the US are the most pollutant (?) country in the world !

how can you say such a thing? Why most countries sign it then? http://forums.megadeth.com/images/smilies/shakehead.gif

Of course it would have been an extreme measure for the US..... But the US are the most pollutant (?) country in the world !
Reading comprehension is a Good Thing™.

Read my introductory post where I go into the human factor on the environment and try again without the bandwagon appeal.


EDIT:
Incidentally, as to your comment that the US is the most polluting nation in the world...

The G8 members are:

Canada (~30 million people)
France and Germany (~80 million each)
Italy (~58 million)
Japan (~127 million)
Russian Federation (~143 million)
UK (~60 million)
The United States of America (~293 million)

Listen Lly:

Since you're being very cordial with me, I took some of my time to read once again your nice first post......

You say:


we have less than 150 years of solid climate data. We know temperatures are increasing, the problem is we don't know why or if humans have any part in it (beyond the trivial part of existing)


> the problem is that we know who is reponsible for all this pollution. So, sure you can keep your head in the sand. What wouldn't you do to keep your comfort?


That having been said, in the absence of solid evidence that anything we do can make a difference, it is both insane and suicidal for us to sacrifice industry in the name of the environment or to cave into people like Ehrlich, who wouldn't know good science if it fell down and hit him on the head. People who advocate "drastic measures" to save our planet when:

0) We don't know that we are the cause of the problem in the first place.
1) Even granting that we are the problem, we don't know that such drastic measures would do any good


>LOL.... we don't know if any that such drastic measures would do any good...... ahahah, sorry but that's the most immature line ever.
ok, then let's keep pollute, let's live in our beautiful shell and let's not foresee what will occur later. You're Oh so right.

All you're trying to say in that prose is that there's no real proof that we are polluating the planet..... that we can't do anything. So, let's live normally. (or almost....In your very high generosity, you can conceide a lilt Oil price increase..... Ser is so good).
You know what? It's because of such point of views that everyone has such a bad opinion of US external politics.

I sorta read Lly's original post differently, Arutha. I go tthe impression that when he said "we", he meant the human race, not the Americans...

I could be wrong...

> the problem is that we know who is reponsible for all this pollution. So, sure you can keep your head in the sand. What wouldn't you do to keep your comfort?



The temperature is increasing on every planet in our solar system and the only evidence that we have that the temperature even correlates with human involvement is over such a short period of time that the odds of it being coincidental are very high. All evidence from ice cores and other geologic data shows that we are in the clear.

So what evidence do you have that humans have any role in global warming, again? Or that us making even drastic cutbacks would have any affect on the environment? Or that if we don't perform such radical cutbacks we are doomed? Evidence, not rhetoric please.


>LOL.... we don't know if any that such drastic measures would do any good...... ahahah, sorry but that's the most immature line ever.
ok, then let's keep pollute, let's live in our beautiful shell and let's not foresee what will occur later. You're Oh so right.


Sarcasm, ad hominems, nor straw men become you. Try again. I'll grant you that you avoided the bandwagon appeal, but I'll challenge you to avoid all of the other logical fallacies as well and provide evidence for what you are spouting out.

Head hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

.In your very high generosity, you can conceide a lilt Oil price increase.....

...and when the price gets high enough, we'll all be using hybrids, diesels, and gasoline reformers. When it gets higher than even that we'll be using electrics that run on water. Or perhaps biodiesel will come before fuel cells, hard to predict what's at least 40 years in the future.

Each stage, you'll note, pollutes less than the last and all a natural consequence of using resources normally while investing and driving towards the future through technological means.


You know what? It's because of such point of views that everyone has such a bad opinion of US external politics.

How people view something is irrelevant to whether that point is correct.

My little two cents....

Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental threat humanity will face in the 21st century.

It is caused by an overabundance of the heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide, in the earth's atmosphere.
Global warming has caused changes in climate worldwide as well as disruptions and dislocations of habitats and wildlife.

There is a lot we can do to combat climate change and global warming - from moving to renewable energy to driving hybrid cars.


"Our house is burning down and we are blind to it.The earth and humankind are in danger and we are all responsible. It is time to open our eyes. Alarms are sounding across all continents. We cannot say we did not know! Climate warming is still reversible. Heavy would be the responsibility of those who refuse to fight it." - French President Jacques Chirac, World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, August, 2002

My little two cents....

Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental threat humanity will face in the 21st century.

It is caused by an overabundance of the heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide, in the earth's atmosphere.
Global warming has caused changes in climate worldwide as well as disruptions and dislocations of habitats and wildlife.

There is a lot we can do to combat climate change and global warming - from moving to renewable energy to driving hybrid cars.


"Our house is burning down and we are blind to it.The earth and humankind are in danger and we are all responsible. It is time to open our eyes. Alarms are sounding across all continents. We cannot say we did not know! Climate warming is still reversible. Heavy would be the responsibility of those who refuse to fight it." - French President Jacques Chirac, World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, August, 2002
You do realize that in the last 150 years the earth's magnetic field has declined by about 10%, thus allowing more energy into our atmosphere, right?

There is more to this than can be simply swept away in "humans are at fault." Something that there is no real evidence I can find for (I'd challenge someone to provide it). Measured responses contingent on probability are advisable. Working on technologies that pollute less and are more efficient is a good idea.

Anything past that "measured response" level is just preposterous without strong evidence.

Working on technologies that pollute less and are more efficient is a good idea.

Agreed.

But there are even smaller things that we can do to help. And even if, by some possibilty, we find out that they don't make the slightest bit of difference, it doesn't hurt to try.
For example:


Drive less and keep our cars tuned up. Clean oil = less C02 emissions.
Incorporating solar power into our lives.
Something as simple as using flourescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones...
or by turning our heat down and the ac up..


I believe we need to cut C02 emissions because it is the main cause of global warming, as the following site states...
CarbonNeutral (http://www.futureforests.com/)
EDIT:^this site is very cool and informative...here's a little of what you can find there:
The good news is that it's possible for each of us to 'neutralise' that bit of global warming we cause. Here you can calculate your CO2 emissions, learn how to reduce them, and buy products and gifts which soak up or compensate for unavoidable emissions - like tree planting and 'green' energy in developing countries.

"We're all so worried about the Earth. Like we're gonna hurt the Earth? It's been around for millions of years; we've been here for mere thousands. The Earth was here before us, and it'll be here after us, and if it really wanted to it could shake us off like a bad case of fleas."
Of course "the Earth" will always go on, but we want to keep it reasonably habitable for mammals, not the next thing that comes along after we all commit mass suicide...

The "greenhouse" effect is real. Whether it is directly caused by humans is debatable, but take a deep breath in the middle of downtown L.A. and compare it to anywhere else with less humans.

And even if, by some possibilty, we find out that they don't make the slightest difference, it doesn't hurt to try.
Right on! :)

I heard a news report stating that the sun's temprerature is increasing, but I don't know the details. Can someone provide a link?

I'll tell you how you can stop global warming. It is very simple. Remove Micheal Moore, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Mike Farrell and any other loud mouth liberal from the face of the earth. Their hot air spewing from thier vile mouths is the root cause of global warming and national unrest.

TheMetalRepublican

I'll tell you how you can stop global warming. It is very simple. Remove Micheal Moore, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Mike Farrell and any other loud mouth liberal from the face of the earth. Their hot air spewing from thier vile mouths is the root cause of global warming and national unrest.

TheMetalRepublicanNice. Very Nice. So you'd be happy in your neo-con world with morons who cheated their way into public office pretending to be statesmen and big multi-nationals pulling the strings in the shadows I assume. SHEESH TMR !!

Didn't Shrub say once there is no such thing as Global Warming?

I wonder if his promise to let the Oil companies RAPE Alaska had something to do with that.

Shave Teh Bush in 2004
http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/conner/gwpeek.jpg

I am a very open minded republican and it is closed minded liberals like yourself who throw BUZZLINERS around like they are votes. I have my issues with George W. but I would rather see him in office over a democrat who will cut military spending.

As for "your neo-con world with morons who cheated their way into public office pretending to be statesmen and big multi-nationals pulling the strings in the shadows I assume." This goes both ways. If you are going to use it to bash another person, then you better do your research and understand that this same rant could be pointed at several democrats now and in the past.

tMR

I am a very open minded republican and it is closed minded liberals like yourself who throw BUZZLINERS around like they are votes. I have my issues with George W. but I would rather see him in office over a democrat who will cut military spending.

As for "your neo-con world with morons who cheated their way into public office pretending to be statesmen and big multi-nationals pulling the strings in the shadows I assume." This goes both ways. If you are going to use it to bash another person, then you better do your research and understand that this same rant could be pointed at several democrats now and in the past.

tMRI don't think anyone has been as embarrassing for Americans in office as Shrub. He barely has an edumacation for Pete's sake. Would he even be there if FLA wasn't run by his brother? Just a thought, bro tMR

I laughed when I saw you use 'open-minded' in the same sentence as Republican. Conservatives serve the Status Quo. At least democrats are willing to try new ideas and solutions instead of reckless tax cuts to placate the masses and ridiculous spending meant to stuff the ravenous maw of industry.

Andy

Liberals Vs Conservatives (for the record, I'm liberal on things I believe need to change, convseravtive on matters that I believe should stay the same: I don't suport either mainstream partu here) never, ever end well from my experiences. I think that it'd be better suited to another thread or PM.

My 2 cents:

I agree with Ly that we know very little about the exact nature of the Earth's climate changes and whether the increasing temperature may be entirely natural or man-made. I also agree that we should still focus on reducing CO2 and other emissions that damage the ozone layer and the environment in general, although we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back and say that we're saving the planet, because we don't really know what the hell the planet or ourselves are doing.

To raise another viewpoint, should we try and stop global warming if it is indeed natural, even at the risk of creating something more potentially disasterous for the world's environment and ourselves?

Conner,

That is stupidest thing that I have ever heard. Don't blame Bush for beating you by 'X' amount of votes when you didn't get those 'X' amounts of votes from other states. Example, "Dont blame me for missing the winning shot of a basketball game when you missed the first shot of the game."

You are saying that a stupid man was elected only because his brother was the Gov. of FL. That shows how narrow minded you are. Gore didn't carry his home state of TN so why not put blame where blame belongs. In the hands of those who lost. They lost because they could not muster enough votes. Don't blame 'chads' and Jeb Bush for George W. Bush being elected. That is a shot in the bark.

Mark My words, Bush will be elected again. The world has changed and the polls will prove it. There are some conservative Democrats who like Bush but who are affraid to speak about it. Let me ask you a question? Why is Bill Clinton promoting his book and stealing the thunder from Kerry's campaign? Because Hillary will run in 2008. It would be easier to win that way. So, take a look at your own party to see the bullshit and dishonor. Clinton isn't stupid. Next to Reagan, he is the smartest President we have ever had.

Until you can come up with a respectable quote, comment and or question. I will end this discussion.

tMR

I was not too sure as to what Lly truly meant to say...and thusly I only have my interpretation to offer...here's a whirl...

(Quotations are <credited to:
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=6B1D7713-9BB3-4D3E-881EA982CB15E20D)

Here's the deal: we have less than 150 years of solid climate data. We know temperatures are increasing, the problem is we don't know why or if humans have any part in it (beyond the trivial part of existing) or if we can do anything to stop it.

This is very true...and thus scientists agree..BUT only partially because..:
Although experts may not possess A LOT of information on that, but from what they do know...experts argue that:
...action to counter it (global warming) should be taken now, even though science has not answered many questions about global warming.

However we do know that:

Global warming is mainly caused by emissions from fossil fuels like gasoline and coal.

As far as my 17 year old knowledge goes, the only creature on earth that actually uses or creates gasoline is us humans.

Regarding coal which is also another fossil fuel which causes global warming:

We dig up coal;coal can't certainly dig up itself because:coal is located under layers of peat, covered by sediment receiving heat and pressure from the subsidence of swamps which then goes through a metamorphic process called coalification to form coal.

It is in the industry and the world's best interest that we push invention and innovation and find alternative fuel sources.

Yes, that is very true and although I cannot debate much against that...I do have a...say if you may..as it is industries which pollute illigally are already screwing us over majorly by digging up coal and extracting oil from...like Alaska. And although this may not be all industries, some do that.



0) We don't know that we are the cause of the problem in the first place.
1) Even granting that we are the problem, we don't know that such drastic measures would do any good.

What I pick up from this is: " Humans aren't at fault because we don't even know if we really are, and thus shouldn't even bother"

Again...quoting experts:

Researchers who gathered in Washington Tuesday for a meeting on climate change warned that despite the imperfect state of knowledge, enough is known about global warming to cause grave worry and incite action.

"Nobody is arguing in this country that we don't need to stabilize greenhouse gases. I think the argument is, how fast do you do it and what means do you use to accomplish that end? You have to know quite a bit about what's going on in the science side before you can make an intelligent choice as to what to do on the policy side, because many of these choices involve billions and trillions of dollars of economic dislocation and social dislocation," he said.

So...I'm guessing...we do afterall hold concrete evidence, or as said, enough knowledge to know that us humans should indeed do something about it...

University of Washington scientist David Battisti says current trends in emissions from fossil fuels like gasoline and coal indicate that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will triple in the next 150 years, thickening the gas blanket around Earth that traps heat like a greenhouse.

Wow...I guess we do know things afterall..

This is where I start getting on a touchy subject, so if I do offend anyone, forgive me. And if you are offended, I'm already offering apologies...so don't go and attack me.

Concerning Kyoto...

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol commits more than 120 signing nations to reducing emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases, but President Bush withdrew the United States from the agreement soon after taking office in 2001.

I mean...he got us into war with a very strong reason which was...what was it? Weapons of mass distruction which we searched for and never found...

Harvard University scientist Daniel Schrag says doing something now is like taking out an insurance policy against a catastrophe. He does not believe the Bush administration will act, but notes that this is a presidential election year in the United States.

So...there's a possibility Bush may sign it...just to get votes? Well why didn't he sign it before...had he signed it in 2001 I'm sure it could have helped solve something concerning global warming at least a bit.

I will not discuss any of Bush's actions further because this is a topic about Global Warming, not Bush.

Agreeing with Lly..

But the climate experts meeting in Washington argue that global warming has advanced to the point where corrective steps enacted now would take many decades or longer to begin reversing its impact.

So...taking them now is futile...but perhaps in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol came about...it could have helped? My..wow..I do suppose to some extent us humans are to blame...no?

Ultimately what I have interpreted from Lly as mentioned is that: We are not to blame, because we don't know. But we do know that coal and gasoline causes global warming which...comes back to humans because we use it. But we shouldn't do anything about it now anyway because it would be useless since...we really didn't bother to do anything before...

And lastly..in my opinion. I do believe humans are to blame for global warming. I do believe if the Kyoto Protocol had been signed, we would've had a better opportunity to try to fix global warming, and that maybe if we do take drastic action now..we might just be able to not completely screw ourselves further by doing the things Trace and Lly later on mentioned which are:

Drive less and keep our cars tuned up. Clean oil = less C02 emissions.
Incorporating solar power into our lives.
Something as simple as using flourescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones...
or by turing our heat down and the ac up..


So...that's my rant on global warming.

http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/conner/gtt.bmp
This is from the EPA site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateScienceFAQFundamentals.html


A quote for tMR:
FIREFIGHTER ED HALL: "Mr. President, it really is an honor to meet you, but you don't have to drill for oil in the Arctic."
DUBYA: "Yeah, then we'll run out of energy."
-- How Dubya reacted to an impassioned message to spare the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development, a project which is in no way intended to serve as America's sole energy source, and a message made by a firefighter who served in the World Trade Center cleanup operation, Jan. 2002

Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious -- I'm gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well.
-- Miami, Florida, June 4, 2001

Get me Pootie-Poot on the phone!
-- Dubya's way of requesting a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported in May 27, 2002 issue of Time

There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead.
-- Dubya in Washington, D.C., May 11, 2001

These are all from a hilarious site called: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

Reagan was far from the smartest president you ever had. I would think Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts and Kennedy have more merit. Reagan was against choice for women, he (along with our moron Mulroney) sold Canadian and American manufacturing down the river with free trade and illegally fired all the US air traffic controllers. The War On Drugs is a farce as well when folks do more time for felony possession than they do for murder. Makes the big prescription drug companies and HMOs happy I guess.

PEACE,

Andy

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
-John F. Kennedy


Shave Your Bush In 2004

http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/conner/gtt.bmp
This is from the EPA site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateScienceFAQFundamentals.html


A quote for tMR:
FIREFIGHTER ED HALL: "Mr. President, it really is an honor to meet you, but you don't have to drill for oil in the Arctic."
DUBYA: "Yeah, then we'll run out of energy."
-- How Dubya reacted to an impassioned message to spare the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development, a project which is in no way intended to serve as America's sole energy source, and a message made by a firefighter who served in the World Trade Center cleanup operation, Jan. 2002This is from a hilarious site called: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

Reagan was far from the smartest president you ever had. I would think Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts and Kennedy have more merit. Reagan was against choice for women, he (along with our moron Mulroney) sold Canadian and American manufacturing down the river with free trade and illegally fired all the US air traffic controllers. The War On Drugs is a farce as well when folks do more time for felony possession than they do for murder. Makes the big prescription drug companies and HMOs happy I guess.

PEACE,

Andy

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
-John F. Kennedy

Get me Pootie-Poot on the phone!
-- Dubya's way of requesting a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported in May 27, 2002 issue of Time

There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead.
-- Dubya in Washington, D.C., May 11, 2001

Shave Your Bush In 2004

This is off topic, but I bought myself one of those garbage magazines the other day. This one was full of doomsday predictions from 100 saints. Anyway, I do not agree with this and I think it is something that was just made up but seeing the general dislike for dubya I thought I would share. I was really suprised how they managed to work all their Bush dislike into these so-called prophecies.
"The antichrist will be known by the name W. He will be from a family that his father once ruled over the nation of eagle and stars. He will wear the habit of a priest.
I threw out the magazine but this is the gist of the prediction, it is the combined "predictions" of 3 saints ranging from the 16th century to the early 1800's.
As I said it appears to be very much made up! :rolleyes: . yeah it came from the SUN. Go figure.

This is off topic, but I bought myself one of those garbage magazines the other day. This one was full of doomsday predictions from 100 saints. Anyway, I do not agree with this and I think it is something that was just made up but seeing the general dislike for dubya I thought I would share. I was really suprised how they managed to work all their Bush dislike into these so-called prophecies.
"The antichrist will be known by the name W. He will be from a family that his father once ruled over the nation of eagle and stars. He will wear the habit of a priest.
I threw out the magazine but this is the gist of the prediction, it is the combined "predictions" of 3 saints ranging from the 16th century to the early 1800's.
As I said it appears to be very much made up! :rolleyes: . yeah it came from the SUN. Go figure.

In other words: Far left propaganda. :D




On topic: *points to Lly's 2nd post on 2nd page*

global warming is a myth. whoever made this thread took The day After 2morrow way too seriously and needs a reality check. now.
were there any carbon monoxide and toxin emissions during the ice age? no. drastic climate change is a natural phenomena. its part of the global history.

global warming is a myth. whoever made this thread took The day After 2morrow way too seriously and needs a reality check. now.
Hi. You're new, so I'll leave it up to someone much nicer to educate you on the rules of the debate forum. Until then, please refrain from posting.

ok, now i'm gonna take it really simple:

we (humans) do something, that is maybe bad for us. we don't know (yet). but we should keep doing that, until we figuered out, whether its critical or harmless?

now do i get this right?

global warming is a myth. whoever made this thread took The day After 2morrow way too seriously and needs a reality check. now.
were there any carbon monoxide and toxin emissions during the ice age? no. drastic climate change is a natural phenomena. its part of the global history.
I agree with you to an extent about earth changes. They are inevitable. However, their is much evidence that an astroid hit the earth causing the ice age. It did not just happen out of the blue. What occured is much like what scientists are predicting willl happen if the Ring of fire becomes active again.

The pollution of the atmosphere is a very real problem. They know for a fact our ozone layer has a hole in it . I guess the real question is just how do they plan on undoing all the damage that is already done?

I don't know if global warming is the cause of it but anyone with half a brain can see our climate is changing drastically.

Hi. You're new, so I'll leave it up to someone much nicer to educate you on the rules of the debate forum. Until then, please refrain from posting.

nah i'm good thanks though

I agree with you to an extent about earth changes. They are inevitable. However, their is much evidence that an astroid hit the earth causing the ice age. It did not just happen out of the blue. What occured is much like what scientists are predicting willl happen if the Ring of fire becomes active again.

The pollution of the atmosphere is a very real problem. They know for a fact our ozone layer has a hole in it . I guess the real question is just how do they plan on undoing all the damage that is already done?

I don't know if global warming is the cause of it but anyone with half a brain can see our climate is changing drastically.
As a matter of fact, that asteroid DID fall right 'out of the blue'. Space is where they are all bouncin' around Ethereal. There have actually been alot big hits in our past, as Terra was formed and settled into our current orbit around Sol. Take a look at Hudson's Bay or the Carribean. See the circles? Science can clear the mind and its FUN too! :cool:

I would think the best way to slow the erosion of our ozone layer would be to stop the use of damaging chemicals such as fluorocarbons and halons which have been proven to damage it. This is what the Kyoto Accord is all about. Maybe there are some flaws in it, but it is a start none-the-less. The aggressive marketing of huge trucks and SUV's by the major american automakers is counter-productive to both conservation of energy and to lessening our reliance on Oil. This is the reason Dubya will never support a responsible enviromental program. He knows who butters his bread.

I think we might be losing sight of the Big Picture when we concern ourselves with intercine conflicts and the voracious consumer culture the Western World has created. We made this mess, now lets fix it before we have to terra-form another planet because we were ineffectual at cleaning up the litterbox we are slowly converting Earth into.

Want to help? Set an example for others by the practise of public conservation. Consume less power, educate those ignorant of how we waste without end and support politicians with more on their minds than a round of golf and a spin around town in their Lincoln Navigator.

My name is Andy, and I am Green For Life

Simply guys, the evidence that CO2 is responsible, much less man-released CO2, is minimal at best and is likely being overwhelmed by other factors (the reduction of the earth's magnetic shielding, the solar-system wide temperature changes, etc).

Look at your own studies and citations and examine the methodologies, you'll find that by and large there is either no study behind it or the methodology is shoddy at best. Many of the "scientists" who have spoken out, saying that global warming is a threat don't even have degrees or research in the field of climatology or meteorology--biologists, chemists, and people of that nature.

CO2 may very well be responsible, but there is no evidence of that at this time.

EDIT:

Let's throw in a couple of additional points.

* A Gallup poll (c. 1997) showed that 17% of the people in the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society believe that the warming in the 20th century is the result of greenhouse gas emissions from human sources.

* The temperature on the earth seems to closely follow the solar magnetic cycle length independent of other things (such as CO2).

* Additional info on the IPCC and "scientific consensus" (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/myth_of_global_warming.htm).

* The (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm) Sun (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html).

From the second link:

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

global warming is a myth. How do you know that?
were there any carbon monoxide and toxin emissions during the ice age?I don't know... why don't you tell us? no. drastic climate change is a natural phenomena. its part of the global history.Well, thatnks for clearing that up for us. But once again... HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???

Scientists who are studying the ice cores I mentioned in my earlier post still can't be sure of the things you are arrogantly stating as fact.

Just... Back up your statements... or shut up. you CHILD.

Not to mention the person you think "took The day After 2morrow way too seriously and needs a reality check now" actually agreed with you... :rolleyes:

Not to mention the person you think "took The day After 2morrow way too seriously and needs a reality check now" actually agreed with you... :rolleyes:
Wow - don't lump me in with THIS asshole... PLEASE! :eek:

Not to mention the person you think "took The day After 2morrow way too seriously and needs a reality check now" actually agreed with you... :rolleyes:
Well, not really :D

Wow - don't lump me in with THIS asshole... PLEASE! :eek:
Heh, I was just adding a PS for ya. :)

Heh, I was just adding a PS for ya. :)
And that's why I luvvya, Emz... ;)

Interesting article. I remember reading it a few years ago and so dug it up.

Exit From Eden

DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 01 | January 2000


Every year, twice a year if he's lucky, Hans-Joachim Pachur leaves his office in a pleasant villa opposite the Berlin botanical garden, leaves the exuberant plant life that shades the streets and pushes through fences and sidewalk cracks, and catches a plane for, say, Libya. In Tripoli he meets up with several colleagues and gets ready for the desert. A geographer at the Free University of Berlin, Pachur has been exploring the Sahara for the last quarter century, and he has been known to do it on camelback. These days, though, he mostly chooses Land Rovers. Supplies gathered and gear checked, the team drives south, away from the Mediterranean; they head out onto the sea of sand, where the waves crest at 600 feet.

To cross those dunes, Pachur and his group let most of the air out of their tires for better traction. When a dune is very steep - the slope can reach 36 degrees - they unstrap metal planks from the sides of the Rovers. They place a pair of these in front of the vehicle and drive onto them; then they pick up another pair from behind the vehicle and place them in front. This can go on for a quarter of a mile. "You have to have considerable experience to drive in this region and not come to grief," says Pachur. You also have to be willing to give up amenities such as beds, decent food, and showers - especially showers. Pachur and his group have to carry all the water they'll need for their several-week expedition, because they don't expect to find a drop.

But there once was water here - lots of it. Last March, in the Murzuq Sand Sea of southwestern Libya, Pachur found bones of crocodiles, hippopotamuses, elephants, and gazelles as well as windblown ridges of lake-bed chalk - evidence that the region had been dotted with bodies of freshwater. Years ago in the northern Sudan, Pachur found traces of a lake that may have been as large as Erie. In that same region he traced the course of a river that once flowed east into the upper Nile, crossing several hundred miles of what is now utter desert. He has found other rivers that flowed from the Tibesti Mountains 600 miles north to the Mediterranean Sea, through the core of the Sahara. That region now gets less than two-tenths of an inch of rain each year.

Along those lost rivers, between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago, giraffes munched on acacia trees, elephants sprayed water from their trunks, hippos wallowed in mud. And people lived there too. They were shepherds and cowherds, hunters and fishers, and they were starting to settle down in small villages and cultivate grains such as sorghum and millet. Pachur believes the Sahara then was an Eden. "People did not experience this region the way we do, as a hostile environment," he says. "For them, it provided enormous possibilities to blossom." On rock walls west of the Murzuq, or in the Gilf Kebir highlands of southwestern Egypt, the Saharans carved and painted scenes from their lives. They depicted themselves driving cattle, hunting, and swimming, or sometimes just sitting around drinking.

But then the climate began to change, and the desert came. It began sometime after 6,000 years ago. Within just a few centuries, a gentle, fertile region the size of the United States was transformed into one of the harshest, most barren places on Earth. The Saharans had to leave. Many must have migrated east into the valley of the Nile, their closest source of water. That exodus, some archaeologists think, may be the event that triggered the rise of the pharaohs in Egypt a little more than 5,000 years ago. Eden gave way to one of the planet's first great civilizations.

Miracle or catastrophe, the birth of the Sahara was not an act of God. At the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, just outside Berlin, a theoretical climatologist named Martin Claussen and his graduate student Claudia Kubatzki have recently been able to re-create the desert-building process on a computer. They say that ultimately what keeps rain from falling on the Sahara is a lack of plants - which is not as paradoxical as it sounds. It's even possible, they say, that in a century or two the desert might recapture its salad days.

Claussen, who uses Pachur's data to anchor his model to reality, has never been to the Sahara, never risked his neck trying to cross giant dunes in a four-wheel-drive vehicle. But then he has never been to Jupiter either, and in a way that's the starting point for any attempt to explain the Sahara. Jupiter's gravity and Venus's gravity pulls on Earth, causing our planet to tilt on its axis to varying degrees. The tilt is what gives Earth seasons: Summer happens in the northern hemisphere when it is tilted toward the sun. The sun's zenith during this period reaches as far north as the tropic of Cancer, which at present runs through the Gilf Kebir and the southern edge of the Murzuq. That latitude, 23.5 degrees, is the present tilt angle. But over the course of a 41,000-year cycle, the tilt and the tropic get as high as 24.5 and as low as 22.1 degrees.

While Jupiter and Venus are tilting the Earth's axis, the sun and moon are causing it to wobble like a top; that changes the time of perihelion, the point on Earth's elliptical orbit at which the planet comes closest to the sun. Together these two cycles - along with even slower perturbations in the shape of the orbit - determine how much sunlight falls on a given latitude at a given season. They are called Milankovitch cycles, after the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, who proposed in the 1930s that such regularly occurring variations could explain why Earth's climate goes in and out of ice ages. According to this theory, the most recent ice sheets began retreating from Canada and Eurasia around 17,000 years ago because that's when the northern hemisphere started getting enough sun during the summer to melt them. About 9,000 years ago, the northern sunlight curve was reaching a peak; climatologists call this period the Holocene Optimum. The axial tilt was higher than it is now, around 24 degrees, and perihelion was in July. Both factors made for especially hot northern summers and - though it may seem surprising - for a greener Sahara.

Throughout the ice age, the Sahara was a desert. But as the summers got hotter, they also got wetter. During the summer, the African landmass heats up more than the adjacent Atlantic, and that temperature contrast drives the monsoon: as hot air rises up and away over the land, moist winds flow northeast from the Gulf of Guinea to replace it. Hotter summers mean a stronger monsoon that brings more rainfall farther north, into the Sahara.

Until now, that has been the whole explanation for why the desert once bloomed - but it just doesn't work, says Claussen. "When you try to reproduce that process in a computer-model atmosphere, the results are disappointing," he says. "You end up with a Sahara desert more or less where it is today." A bit more rain does fall on the desert, but not nearly enough to support abundant vegetation or to create lakes. A few years ago, Claussen had a hunch: Maybe the Sahara wasn't turning green in the models simply because the models, unlike reality, weren't letting it.

Every gardener knows, he says, that climate zones dictate what plants can grow where. But what about the reverse process - might vegetation have an influence on climate? At the small scale the answer is obviously yes: A forest is a cooler, damper place than open rangeland. But what about at the global scale? Climate models have tended to ignore this possibility. The ones that tried to calculate how much rain would have fallen on the Sahara during the hotter summers of the Holocene never actually allowed the model desert to turn green. They left it empty sand. "If you sow a desert, then naturally you'll reap a desert," says Claussen.

There are at least two ways in which vegetation itself might procure the rainfall it needs. First, ground covered by plants is darker than a desert; if you look at satellite images, the Sahara is the brightest feature on Earth after the polar ice caps. It reflects away as much as 40 percent of the sunlight it receives and sends most of the rest right back into space, through cloudless skies, as infrared radiation. Human bodies get fried in the Sahara, but as far as the atmosphere is concerned, the desert is a net cold source - and so most of the time air flows into the region at high altitude and sinks, forming a dry region of high pressure. If there were enough plants there, the situation would be very different: Darkened ground would absorb more sunlight, the atmosphere above the plants would be heated, and the warm air would rise - which is a prerequisite for clouds and rain.

The other prerequisite, of course, is water. Plant-covered soil is invariably wetter than desert sand. When moist soil absorbs sunlight, the water evaporates. In the atmosphere it condenses again, releasing energy that fuels updrafts, and thereby forms clouds. The clouds rain, returning water to the soil. The updrafts strengthen the monsoon, pulling in more moisture. "It's a positive, self-reinforcing feedback loop," says Claussen. "As the vegetation gets thicker, the ground gets darker and wetter, which leads to more precipitation, which causes the vegetation to get thicker again."

With his colleagues at Potsdam, Claussen developed a model that incorporated this positive feedback. They turned its clock back to 9,000 years ago, and started it running with the sunlight distribution prescribed for that date by Milankovitch, and lo! they got a Sahara savanna. There was enough rain to fill lakes and rivers, enough grass and trees to feed Pachur's elephants and giraffes. Claussen let the model keep running.The positive feedback works as well in reverse. By 6,000 years ago, Earth's axis was tilting less than it had been, heading toward its current angle, and perihelion was heading out of northern summer and toward winter. Northern summers were getting cooler, the African monsoon a bit weaker, and the vegetation in the savanna sparser. All this was happening very gradually; the orbital cycles are subtle. But at some point - in Claussen's model it was around 5,500 years ago - the system crossed a threshold: the feedback kicked in. Enough vegetation had been lost from the Sahara, enough bare ground exposed, that precipitation declined sharply and barrenness began to spread like wildfire. "Suddenly things went downhill very rapidly," says Claussen. Within a few centuries the cool moist soil had become sand.

Over the years some archaeologists have suggested that the people who lived there might have helped create the Sahara by cutting down the trees. Claussen is skeptical. "We don't really need people," he says. "We've shown that this can be described as a natural phenomenon." The people, more likely, were just caught in a vast and weird clockwork, one that connected Jupiter to their acacia trees, with Earth's tilted axis, the summer monsoon, and the brightness of desert sand all acting as intermediate cogs. The wheels turned and took the Saharans' landscape away from them, and it all happened very fast, in a time span well within the limits of cultural memory.

In the last couple of decades archaeologists have done a fair amount of digging in the Sahara, especially in Egypt. At Nabta, 60 miles west of the Nile near the Sudanese border, Fred Wendorf of Southern Methodist University, Romuald Schild of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and Angela E. Close of the University of Washington in Seattle have found the remains of a small settlement established along a seasonal lake between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago. The people there engaged in some odd activities: ceremonial burials of cows, for instance. They also hauled multiton slabs of sandstone, some of them 10 feet tall, from hundreds of yards away and stood them on end in the lake mud. The standing stones may have served to point out north or to "acknowledge the zenith Sun near the onset of the rainy season," as Wendorf and Schild have recently proposed. In any case, the backbreaking labor required to erect them suggests a social hierarchy. "Nobody's going to do that to fill up a quiet Sunday afternoon," says Close. "Somebody has to be sitting there at the top saying, 'You. . .will. . .do. . .this!'"

Farther north and around 120 miles west of the Nile, near Farafra Oasis, a team led by Barbara Barich of the University of Rome has been excavating another lakeshore settlement from the Sahara's greener days. The people there kept sheep, goats, probably cattle, and perhaps ostriches - Barich has found an inordinate number of eggshells. They built houses with stone foundations and hearths, and they were starting to cultivate the sorghum and millet that grew wild along the lake. These rudiments of agriculture put them well ahead of people then living in the Nile Valley. "There they were still chasing gazelles up and down," says Close. And perhaps fishing too: During the Holocene Optimum, when even the Sahara was wet, the Nile may have been too wild and too prone to flooding to permit much else in the valley.

Close and Barich both believe that Saharans fleeing the desert may have brought the beginnings of agriculture and of organized, hierarchical society - in short, of a post-Stone Age way of life - to the Nile Valley. At Farafra, Barich has found flint knives and other tools carved in a distinctive style that shows up later along the Nile, implying a transmission of know-how. "We think the western areas were the place from which the idea of cultivation came to the Nile," she says. "It was something that was completely different from the tradition there." The first pharaohs, meanwhile, came to power only a few centuries after people had to leave Nabta. Their pyramids can be seen as more elaborate expressions of an idea already contained in the Nabta megaliths, namely, as Close puts it, "that some people are more equal than others."Today people have returned in large numbers to Farafra and to other oases in Egypt and Libya. They are living there off the climatic past, with wells that descend over a thousand feet and tap groundwater that was last replenished when the Sahara was green. Tripoli and other cities on Libya's Mediterranean coast get water from oases that lie as much as 250 miles south in the desert. One of the giant pipelines tracks the path of one of Pachur's paleo-rivers. At some oases the fossil groundwater is used to irrigate vast circular fields. In the area around Farafra they grow wheat now instead of sorghum.

Those fields are not enough vegetation to call in the monsoon, in spite of the feedback that Claussen has identified - but that is not to say that such a project is beyond human powers. If we followed the Milankovitch clock, we would need to pass through another ice age before the Sahara turned green again, but we're not sticking to that timetable. Global warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could, a century or two from now, provide the nudge to the monsoon that the tilt and wobble of Earth's axis did in the middle Holocene. Claussen's model suggests it's possible, though he doesn't much like to talk about it: He's afraid people will get the wrong idea. The real message of his simulations, he says, is that feedbacks in Earth's climate have in the past produced abrupt climate changes that disrupted human societies tremendously - and we're not yet capable of predicting which changes lie in our future.

Still, the notion that at least one of the unintended consequences of our fossil-fuel habit might be the greening of the Sahara is cheerful to contemplate. Pachur takes the possibility seriously. Though he likes the desert well enough to struggle through it every year, one gets the sense he would quite like to see it become a savanna once again, like the ancient one whose traces he uncovers. "There would be one essential difference, though," he says. "Those vast plains would no longer be populated by animals."

In the past, when the desert came, the giraffes, elephants, lions, and other large animals retreated toward the Mediterranean and into mountains like the Tibesti or the Atlas ranges; when the Sahara went green again, the animals could spread down onto the plains following the rivers and lakes. Those relict populations were still around in historical times - the Greeks and Romans met them - but in the past couple of millennia, human hunters have eradicated them all. If the Sahara ever becomes Eden again, it won't be the Eden of the Holocene Optimum. It will be Eden after the fall.

I recently have watched The Day After Tommorrow. I really loved this movie, and it has brought Global Warming to attention, this is a serious matter, so this is why I hoping to bring this thread back to life. :)

I'm just scared, that if we don't do something, were going to be some freezing, or dead eggmercoppers! :(

I recently have watched The Day After Tommorrow. I really loved this movie, and it has brought Global Warming to attention, this is a serious matter, so this is why I hoping to bring this thread back to life. :)

I'm just scared, that if we don't do something, were going to be some freezing, or dead eggmercoppers! :(

First of all: The day after Tomorrow sucked. imo.

2nd: ITS A MOVIE!

First of all: The day after Tomorrow sucked. imo.

2nd: ITS A MOVIE!

Yeah, it is but it can happen, and if we keep doing what we've been doing, were going to be some dead eggmercoppers. That's not good. :(

Yeah, it is but it can happen, and if we keep doing what we've been doing, were going to be some dead eggmercoppers. That's not good. :(

Yeah and I watched Planet of the Apes and no matter how unfeasible it is, it could happen. So there's only one thing to do, kill those "Damn Dirty Apes!"

Personally, if the earth uh, dies or goes into a new ice age like in whatever climate/weather disaster movies- good riddance. We had it coming. v.v'

The technical advisor for The Day After Tomorrow was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship news programme, "The Today Programme". It went something like this...

Interviewer - "So, is the science in this film sound? I mean, is it possible for the events as depicted in the film to actualy occur?"
Movie Science Guy - "No, it's not sound and of COURSE it couldn't happen!! Duh!!"
Interviewer - "Well, Lordy hush mah mouth."

That's not verbatim, you understand.

:)

Global Warming is a natural climate change in the earth. This has happened before, thousands and millions of years ago. But I see that your point is that we might be contributing to it, and making it happen faster then it should, and that I agree with. I think that Earth is naturally warming up, since the last Ice Age, but we are adding to its change, and it is happening quicker then it should.

Source: www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com)

Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate
Species, including polar bears, may go extinct as ice melts



OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation report said on Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Arctic temperatures are rising at almost twice the global average and could leap 4-7 Celsius (7-13 Fahrenheit) by 2100, roughly twice the global average projected by U.N. reports. Siberia and Alaska have already warmed by 2-3 C since the 1950s.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer by the end of the century. The extent of the ice has shrunk by 15 percent to 20 percent in the past 30 years.

"Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover," the report said. On land, creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer and snowy owls are being squeezed north into a narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed
The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective snow and ice.

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said the Arctic changes were an early warning. "What happens there is of concern for everyone because Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications," he said.

And the melting of glaciers is expected to raise world sea levels by about 10 cm (4 inches) by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are suffering. Buildings from Russia to Canada have collapsed because of subsidence linked to thawing permafrost that also destabilises oil pipelines, roads and airports.

Indigenous hunters are falling through thinning ice and say that prey from seals to whales is harder to find. Rising levels of ultra-violet radiation may cause cancers.

Changes under way in the Arctic "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even (to) the survival of some cultures," the report says.

Farming could benefit in some areas, while more productive forests are moving north on to former tundra. "There are not just negative consequences, there will be new opportunities too," said Paal Prestrud, vice-chair of ACIA.

Scientists will meet in Iceland this week to discuss the report. Foreign ministers from Arctic nations are due to meet in Iceland on November 24, but diplomats say they are deeply split with Washington least willing to make drastic action.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States, the world's top polluter, out of the 126-nation Kyoto protocol in 2001, arguing its curbs on greenhouse gas emissions were too costly and unfairly excluded developing nations.

"Kyoto is only a first step," said Norwegian Environment Minister Knut Hareide, a strong backer of Kyoto. "The clear message from this report is that Kyoto is not enough. We must reduce emissions much more in coming decades."


Ok. No more polar bears by 2100 according to these 250 scientists. Not sure about that... what about the ones in the zoo?

And what about the antartic?

The powers that be really need to be considerate of these types of studies, Nonetheless. (although, i didn't see any part of the "study" in this article).

When the earth changes, species evolve. That is the way. The polar bear will evolve as well.

Maybe a quasi polar bear. Hey they drink coke and that isn't good for them..
tMR

When the earth changes, species evolve. That is the way. The polar bear will evolve as well.

Maybe a quasi polar bear. Hey they drink coke and that isn't good for them..
tMR
Evolution takes millions of years to happen. The earth is warming up much faster than that. Yes, organisms can adapt well, but that takes time. Can you say for sure that polar bears will evolve faster than the changing of the earth's climate, or would they die off because the climate changes too fast?

And we're not just talking about polar bears specifically. All species would be affected to varying degrees by global warming. Some will adapt, some may become extinct simply because the change occurs too fast.

The Trouble with a Warmer World
Global warming is happening now -- at huge costs


Healthy coral reef in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Over the past 25 years, global warming has been damaging these "rain forests" of the ocean. In the Arctic, ice is thawing. Around the world, ocean temperatures are rising. In the U.S., the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico, the threat of stronger hurricanes looms large. On their own, each of these is a wake-up call to stop a dangerous trend. Together, they show how the damage from unchecked global warming is changing our lives – for the worse.

Warmer Waters Brew Fiercer Hurricanes – Hurricanes are not a new threat. But global warming could be making these storms more intense, two recent studies suggest. "Hurricane Katrina is a harbinger of what we will likely experience in the coming years," says Environmental Defense chief scientist Bill Chameides. "If we don’t curb our global warming pollution, it’s just going to get worse." Read more about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.

Warm water fuels hurricanes
Why? Warm ocean waters are a hurricane's engine. In fact, for a hurricane to occur, ocean temperatures must be a minimum of 80 degrees F. That's why hurricane season occurs during the warmest months of the year (June to November). We now know from ocean measurements that sea surface temperatures have been heating up for at least the last 50 years or so because of global warming. And warmer oceans are predicted to cause more brutal hurricanes.

Studies suggest global warming is making hurricanes stronger
Two recent studies indicate that the effects of global warming on hurricanes are already happening. Meteorologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studied tropical storm and ocean temperature data and discovered that the destructive potential of tropical storms in the North Atlantic and Pacific has doubled over the past 30 years. At the Georgia Institute of Technology, researcher Peter Webster and colleagues found a sharp increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the past 35 years. Emanuel and Webster's findings reinforce each other and suggest a strong link between global warming and more intense hurricanes.

Thats just the tip of the IceBerg. If the water gets warm enough and the Noth Atlantic flow is disrubted and the Jet Streams(Via Warmer Weather) we are all in for a shit storm. The earth is a Huge Magnet if you mess with its natural cooling system and throw off the natural draw of the poles, Excuse the Expression we are fucked!

Global Warming Causes The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.


Optimus, we've had cycles like this before, in the 50's and early 60's the storms were almost as common and just as powerful. Also the North Atlantic Conveyor partially shut down a couple hundred years ago (there was a period in the 1600's and 1700's that they believe it almost completely shut down), and yeah it's gonna get nasty if it does shut down, though I'm not sure of the effects on the hurricane cycle, it would make sense that the pooling of warmer water in the mid-Atlantic basin would lead to much larger storms.

I am aware of those events, but you fail to see the point of my post. The population of the earth is much larger then it has ever been. When the food starts running out then you will see what ulgy really is. Im not saying its going to happen in the next 5 years but 20 is very down to earth!

"Yeah yeah yeah yeah... but what about Global Cooling?" -David Letterman :D

Seriously, just because this year ties (or potentially breaks) the number of atlantic cyclones in a given season does not automatically equal global warming. Nonetheless, the Earth-first, earth-tone-clothes-wearing-green-freak-vegans sure like to have field days whenever they get info like this though... 'Ok, the one degree increase in sea temps over a localized area such as the Atlantic Basion is irrefutably global warming, with record hurricanes' :rolleyes:

BTW, off topic a bit... memphis might hit 90 degrees F today, the latest in a calendar year. Global warming? I Think NOT!!

---

Optimus Prime, do you have a source / link for that post?

Optimus Prime, do you have a source / link for that post?
Found it: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=4823&nolinkID=26

Optimus Prime, do you have a source / link for that post?

For the record im not trying to say the world is comming to an end. Im just saying that we are the cause of this climate change. Its fact we are heading for a new Ice Age. Im gonna put this in very easy way for people to understand it.

Fact
Polution "Green House Gas" that come from CARS, Bastard Sized Trucks, and Unregulated Industry (See President Bush) cause rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Fact
The gas blocks out good sunlight ( See Skin Cancer Warnings and Causes Pretty Pink, Orange and Red Sunsets) and traps in the earths heat.

Fact
Ice does not like warm water - Ice Melts

Fact
Ice melting causes to much Cool Fresh Water ( On top of freash water rainfall via storms see Global Warming) to be pumped into the Atlantic Ocean.

Fact
The North Atlantic Flow(equivalent to the total energy output of a million nuclear power plants)

Fact
North Atlantic Flow Cools and Slows Down = Mini Ice Age Mostly for Europe and States Above New York

Fact
North Atlantic Flow STOPS = ICE AGE



Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin

National Academy of Sciences

Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment

World Glacier Monitoring Group

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Stocker, Thomas F. and Andreas Schmittner. 1997. Influence of carbon dioxide emission rates on the stability of the thermohaline circulation. Nature 388:862-865.

Rahmstorf, Stefan. . Risk of sea-change in the Atlantic. Nature 388:825-826.

Appenzeller, Christof. Draft Fact-sheet Thermohaline Circulation. University of Bern, Switzerland.

Schiller, Andreas. The Stability of the Thermohaline Circulation in a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Model. CSIRO Australia.

The study, authored by University of Bern researchers Thomas Stocker and Andreas Schmittner, shows by means of simplified climate models that unabated anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions may disrupt the thermohaline circulation which transports a billion megawatts of heat (equivalent to the total energy output of a million nuclear power plants) from the Gulf of Mexico via the Gulf Stream to the North Atlantic and Europe.

Warm, salty surface water moves northward along the coast of North America and eastward to the European coast, where it loses heat to westerly onshore winds. As the surface water cools, it becomes more dense, sinks to a depth of about 2 km and flows at a rate of about 10 km per day back across the Atlantic and then southward.

This thermohaline circulation, or ocean overturning, is driven by comparatively small differences in sea water density, which depend on a balance between sea water cooling and salinity fluctuations arising from freshwater input (precipitation and river run-off) in the North Atlantic. A shift in this balance is foreseeable as models of global warming predict heavier precipitation at higher latitudes. The increase could reduce salinity in the North Atlantic enough to weaken or halt the thermohaline circulation.

Stocker and Schmittner's study concludes that the severity of a disruption in thermohaline circulation brought on by global warming will depend on the rate of warming and, hence, on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. With a well-tested, coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model they show that, at present-day rates of carbon dioxide emission, thermohaline circulation will cease altogether by the time that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has doubled (to 750 p.p.m.v.). However, if carbon dioxide concentration increases more slowly, circulation will merely weaken with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The limits of climate models prevent exact predictions as it is impossible to include in the model all possible parameters and feedbacks. A particular source of uncertainty is change in precipitation, which is the deciding factor in thermohaline circulation shut-down.

The consequences of a shut-down in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation are uncertain. Paleoclimatological evidence shows that disruption of the thermohaline circulation has happened before. Deep ocean sediments dating from the last Ice Age (~11,000 year ago), suggest that the fresh water run-off from melting ice masses decreased sea water density sufficiently to cause a breakdown of ocean overturning. What followed was a European winter 10 degrees Celsius below normal and cold spells that lasted for hundreds of years.

Without offsetting effects of global warming, comparable cooling could be expected today with a shut-down in thermohaline circulation. For London, this could mean a climate similar to that now experienced by the Arctic island of Spitzbergen. However, studies that take account of global warming indicate that a halt to Atlantic Ocean overturning would cause only a small region of air cooling somewhere south of Greenland. But whatever the immediate climatic consequences, a slowdown or cessation of Atlantic overturning would reduce oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide. This, in turn, would impact the climate by exacerbating thermohaline instability and raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Link for his last little bout of plagarism: http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover5.html

On the topic of cyclones, incidentally, there are multi-decade cycles of activity that seem to affect location, number, and intensity of tropical cyclones.

We just entered an active cycle in the North Atlantic that is expected to last ~20 years or so. That accounts for a relatively small percentage of the tropical cyclones around the world (Northwest Pacific is the most active). Quoting the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html): "it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes."

On the topic of cyclones, incidentally, there are multi-decade cycles of activity that seem to affect location, number, and intensity of tropical cyclones.

We just entered an active cycle in the North Atlantic that is expected to last ~20 years or so. That accounts for a relatively small percentage of the tropical cyclones around the world (Northwest Pacific is the most active). Quoting the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html): "it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes."


Here is a 2005 Study that is Scientific FACT that GLOBAL Warming is causing this! I find it had to believe that you don't think that GLOBAL WARMING is going on around you as we speak. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html

P.S. Here is the winter out look for this year. Here is a hint, its going to be warm.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2520.htm

The atmosphere is not constant.
The atmosphere and factors within it have never been anything resembling constant.
There are a few hundred various cycles that help in regulating the temperature of the earth at any given moment, most of which are completely ignored in studies about global warming.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Just a few points, not entirely unbiased but brings up some things I'd like to see discussed.

*Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Its prescence in the atmosphere completely dwarfs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is constantly regulated by oceans.

*Water has a massively higher rate of heat dissipation than air.
In short, water can warm the air, but not vice versa.

*~3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity (volcanoes, for example, release a few billion times more than a dozen factory smokestacks)

*It has been shown that there are hot spots in the earth's core that rotate (as the core is not stationary)
These can be assumed to have contributed more to the first ice age than greenhouse gases. They are also a more feasable source for the warming of ocean waters in the pacific (Ring of Fire sound familiar at all?).


Because I'm tired of seeing only one side of the argument.

Oh so you *do* know how to use citations.

Unfortunately, you don't know how to read your own links. It mentions nothing about a "scientific fact" (your words), it mentions a correlation, that's it. It also reads like a press release.

Reading further down the page, I also see quotes such as: "The new findings raise the possibility that the current warming trend may not be as unusual or unprecedented as previously thought, and that the climate’s natural variability may be greater than most recent studies have assumed."

I also love assumptions like this one:

"These specific projections are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will increase by 1 percent per year (compounded) over the next 80 years, which is higher than the current rate of about 0.6 to 0.7 percent per year." Emphasis mine.

There's no reason to think it will increase by 1% compounded year over year. It is more likely that there is a threshold effect, and a lot can change in 80 years. Based on Simon's argument in The Ultimate Resource II, I would say it is safe to assume that the US, at the least, will be more efficient, not less.

Now, let's talk about what the NOAA says:


We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year. Instead of seeing a long-term trend up or down, we do see a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases for major Atlantic hurricanes on the scale of 25-40 years each (Gray 1990; Landsea 1993; Landsea et al. 1996). The quiet decades of the 1970s to the early 1990s for major Atlantic hurricanes were likely due to changes in the Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperature structure with cooler than usual waters in the North Atlantic. The reverse situation of a warm North Atlantic was present during the active late-1920s through the 1960s (Gray et al. 1997). It is quite possible that the extreme activity since 1995 marks the start of another active period that may last a total of 25-40 years. More research is needed to better understand these hurricane "cycles".


Emphasis again mine.

I note this contradicts what the EPA says, but there are two things to note.

One, I personally trust the NOAA more than the EPA on this matter (for a couple of reasons, among them that the EPA has a vested interest in saying exactly what your link says, while the NOAA has no such motivations and can take a more... scientific... perspective). I certainly see a more "scientific" (read as: inquisitive and open minded) attitude from the NOAA.

Two, if it is cyclic with multi-decade cycles, then the EPA study could easily be looking, over the last 35 years, at the separation between a trough and a peak. It is hard to tell without more data on the specific study.

Regardless, what I see are not "scientific facts" but conflicting theories from different agencies. This is reasonable and quite scientific--it happens and is resolved through research and further studies. Stop throwing around the word "fact" before you hurt yourself.

Regardless, what I see are not "scientific facts" but conflicting theories from different agencies. This is reasonable and quite scientific--it happens and is resolved through research and further studies. Stop throwing around the word "fact" before you hurt yourself.

Again I give you the Facts!
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

When the food starts running out then you will see what ulgy really is.
Just to point out- it only takes less than 10% of the worlds population (I think its about 6 or 7 percent exactly) to provide adequate food for the rest of the world. So i dont know about food running out... Whatever that really means, anyway.

Again I give you the Facts!
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Again I give you the Facts!
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
Fact:
Last Modified on Friday, January 7th, 2000 There's been 5 years and several months since the data on that web page was last updated. Yet the graph says "Taken from 2001". That's kinda weird. And makes me think twice about the accuracy of the data presented there.

What are the numbers after year 2000?
*edit* What were the numbers before 1880 (dates not bound by the graph)? *edit2* Lly's article below addresses that point.

There's always this quote: (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html) "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." -- Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

The article also indicates that "The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001."


EDIT:

I've mentioned and linked to this before, but it bears repeating:

http://homepage.mac.com/ap_llywelyn/.Pictures/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

Just to point out- it only takes less than 10% of the worlds population (I think its about 6 or 7 percent exactly) to provide adequate food for the rest of the world. So i dont know about food running out... Whatever that really means, anyway.
Perhaps, but you'd still have to consider the amount of "farmable" land. No amount of technology is ever going to make wheat grow on top of more wheat, or tomatoes in the Arctic.

You know what, I really don't know where I'm going with this - I haven't done any research on this, but I'd just like to point out that there are more factors to consider here than just population and the % of population needed to grow food.

Perhaps, but you'd still have to consider the amount of "farmable" land. No amount of technology is ever going to make wheat grow on top of more wheat, or tomatoes in the Arctic.

You know what, I really don't know where I'm going with this - I haven't done any research on this, but I'd just like to point out that there are more factors to consider here than just population and the % of population needed to grow food.

the problem is not the AMOUNT of food. Currently, there is enough food grown on this planet to adequately feed everyone. It is the distribution of such food that is what causes people to starve. tomatoes will not grow in the arctic, but you can grow enough tomatoes in a temperate climate to feed everyone.

There have been several instances through out history where countries have sent food to other countries to keep the people from starving, only to have it sit on docks or in warehouses rotting because of political conflict. Look at how much food a grocery store throws away at the end of a week. look at how much food YOU personally waste.

Here is an intersting story: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
18:00 30 November 2005

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.

The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.


What do you think about these dramatic findings?
Discuss this story >> Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK, whose group carried out the analysis, says he is not yet sure if the change is temporary or signals a long-term trend. "We don’t want to say the circulation will shut down," he told New Scientist. "But we are nervous about our findings. They have come as quite a surprise."

Maybe the waves of longterm heat and cold spells are just getting shorter?

I agree completely with Llywelyn (http://www.evboard.com/member.php?u=20237)’s original post. I have absolutely no argument on the subject. However, I believe there is something I should add to this thread, and I honestly hope that it is received well…

I’ve read many of the debates here, but rarely or never get involved; I can’t remember which. I don’t usually get involved because these things turn so easily into arguments, and I find arguments pointless and ridiculous. So I want to point out, before I begin, that I’m not arguing with anyone. I believe this will be self evident after reading my post, but I thought that it was best just to come right out and say it just to be safe.

Regardless of the ifs, the ands, and the buts; the cause and effect theories, and all that garbage; I think that we all should respect our planet whether we’ve done it serious damage yet or not…

I see it like this:

We’re all room mates, and the earth is our home. Most responsible individuals keep their homes clean, or at least recognize the fact that it should be clean. We don’t come home from work every day, close all the windows, throw garbage all over the house, and fill it up with chemicals and smoke. We don’t want to eat and drink poisonous chemicals, and we don’t want to wreck all of our furniture that we live and sleep on. More importantly, we would never do these things to someone else’s house.

Our home is a beautiful place, and we should respect it by keeping it that way. It’s really not too bad yet; not as bad as some people would like us to believe anyway. So if we tidy up a little now, and clean up after ourselves in the future, it’ll always be a beautiful place to live.

I don’t expect the world to change tomorrow. I don’t expect to see some drastic unrealistic change in my lifetime. But I do recognize the fact that the sooner we begin to clean up our mess, the easier it will be to do so. At some point or another, we won’t have a choice about it anyway…

We have such wonderful gifts of invention; I believe with all of my heart that we can create things that not only exist harmlessly in nature, but actually benefit it.

Let’s just show ourselves and our neighbors the courtesy that we all deserve in the mean time. The planet, the people, and the animals alike…

We need each other to survive…

-Take Care Everyone-
-Nameless

For the record im not trying to say the world is comming to an end. Im just saying that we are the cause of this climate change. Its fact we are heading for a new Ice Age. Im gonna put this in very easy way for people to understand it.

Fact
Polution "Green House Gas" that come from CARS, Bastard Sized Trucks, and Unregulated Industry (See President Bush) cause rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Fact
The gas blocks out good sunlight ( See Skin Cancer Warnings and Causes Pretty Pink, Orange and Red Sunsets) and traps in the earths heat.

Fact
Ice does not like warm water - Ice Melts

Fact
Ice melting causes to much Cool Fresh Water ( On top of freash water rainfall via storms see Global Warming) to be pumped into the Atlantic Ocean.

Fact
The North Atlantic Flow(equivalent to the total energy output of a million nuclear power plants)

Fact
North Atlantic Flow Cools and Slows Down = Mini Ice Age Mostly for Europe and States Above New York

Fact
North Atlantic Flow STOPS = ICE AGE





The warmest year on record was 1998, five years after Bill Clinton took office. If you are going to be so childish as to blame a President for global warming, start with him.

If "global" warming is the cause of the rise in the earths temp, then explain why the temp of the earth has risen .63 degrees, since they started recording the earths temp, and the arctic cap has risen around 2.3 degrees. Would not "global" warming be global and not fixed on the arctic regions of the world? Seems like it is arctic warming and not global warming.

so many people getting so many things wrong. This should clarify at least 2 or 3 'facts'.

Refer to http://www.climatehotmap.org/ for worldwide effects that came recommended to me by the AiChemE. Notice that many data is available from developed countries whereas undeveloped countries have less data.

It a subject that has big consequences but no-one can predict what is going to happen, as these consequences have never been recorded. I would say however that anyone who thinks that pumping hydrocarbons into the atmosphere non-stop for the last 100 years is not partly causing the earth to heat up is shortsighted.

Not all the causes for the Earth heating up have been established. (Its not solar radiation anyway, that is constant for the last 50 years-NASA). The Earth goes through periods of heating and cooling (ice age to non-ice age where forests cover most of Africa etc). Anyway, best estimates say that we are disharmonious with this periodical. This is put down to carbon emissions and the like.

Consequences:
There are three, new ice age, drought or nothing. The ice age could happen as follows:
Ice caps in mountains and poles (notice ice cap atop of Kilimanjaro is almost gone) melt. Most of these are fresh water. They enter the sea and the salt conc. in the immediate area’s (which can be huge e.g. of immediate area here is the Gulf Stream) drops. The warm-cold water convection currents will stop if this salt conc. drops too low (no Gulf Stream). This means that most of Europe enters an ice age along with half of North America (see ‘The day after tomorrow with perhaps not so many storms and perhaps more). This will happen all around the world to such an effect that much of the Northern Hemispheres is not habitable. This would be worst-case scenario but with the Earth and life, small changes can have drastic effects (change pH of blood by about 0.1 from norm and you are dead).
Drought is simple if the heat keeps increasing after this ice age. This is unlikely that enough heat would be generated to evaporate the water from the ice caps.
Again, nothing could happen but then again we are not going to stop pumping ‘stuff’ in to the atmosphere for a while so unlikely.

In brief, ice age is more likely. Then again, the magnetic poles are due to flip, so is an asteroid to hit, a super volcano eruption (which would cause a ‘mild’ nuclear winter) etc. However since the consequences are so dire, perhaps every effort should be made to stop the one we can stop.

Would not "global" warming be global and not fixed on the arctic regions of the world? Seems like it is arctic warming and not global warming
Absolutely not.
That's not the case, but if it was, we still face the fact that the artic regions are two of the most important areas on the planet for sea life spawning. Furthermore, unless we want to greatly increase the boat tour revenue of, say, Florida, Louisiana, Brazil, Australia, and company, I suggest that we get our ass in gear about global warming, regardless of whether or not its our fault. The earth heating up is a Very Bad Thing for the homeostasis of the planet and is the most critical environmental threat right now.
I would like to add that the right wing seems to be dishing a lot of bullshit about global warming 'not being our fault' and cracking on Real Science as pseudo-science. Fortunately for them, the public in the United States seems to be getting increasingly retarded in regards to political affairs(read: salute fox news, cnn, cbs news, msnbc, in that order) and science issues.
If you haven't gotten your daily fill of point-and-laugh-at-the-fox-news-retard, I highly recommend you read this (http://www.junkscience.com/) site. I tried and tried, but couldn't find a single legitimate point here. Try if you like.
In other news, Milloy got his pink slip from fox news. I would love to hear some bill o'reilly bullshit as to what 'actually:rolleyes:' happened.
yes.
The Earth goes through periods of heating and cooling (ice age to non-ice age where forests cover most of Africa etc). Anyway, best estimates say that we are disharmonious with this periodical.
thank you.

Furthermore, here's an article about King George W.(indirectly/directly) silencing those goddamned scientists and all of their secular observations about the planet, such as, for example, the fact that we're overwhelmingly responsible for global warming.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."

Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media.

But Dr. Hansen and some of his