global warming artical

[rl71459]

An interesting article. Have a look

http://www.ecnmag.com/article-co2-levels-remained-constant-111109.aspx?menuid=0

Rob

[rl71459]

I'm Sorry everyone.... That was a working link when I posted it.

[AdeV]

Interesting... it's been pulled from the server & replaced with a pro-warming article (http://www.ecnmag.com/news-record-high-temperatures-111309.aspx) - the main thrust of which is that the highs are higher, but the lows aren't as low as they used to be. For what it's worth, a quick glance at http://www.surfacestations.org/ will tell you why that might be...

[lowspeedlife]

Very interesting indeed, another reason is that all the weather sampling sites in the former USSR have been closed so there is no data from them at all now, & very few in the southern hemisphere, but that has always been that way. also interesting is that we had no "code red" days and only two "code orange" days in the Washington DC area this year, normally we have one to two weeks of "code red" & more "code orange" days here. They also keep drastically over-estimating the number of named hurricanes & the number that will make land fall in the US. Pointing out that these people can't forecast the weather reliably next week or next month, so why would we expect they can forecast years or decades in advance?


    Scott R.

[RogerAS]

Very interesting indeed, another reason is that all the weather sampling sites in the former USSR have been closed so there is no data from them at all now, & very few in the southern hemisphere, but that has always been that way. also interesting is that we had no "code red" days and only two "code orange" days in the Washington DC area this year, normally we have one to two weeks of "code red" & more "code orange" days here. They also keep drastically over-estimating the number of named hurricanes & the number that will make land fall in the US. Pointing out that these people can't forecast the weather reliably next week or next month, so why would we expect they can forecast years or decades in advance?


    Scott R.

Interesting observations Scott. Being a former museum director, and ongoing student of earth history, I see things in paleontology which confirm your position. Warning, I'm about to ramble. 

The planet has been experiencing a warming trend since the last interglacial period when many large land animals became extinct, such as Mammoth, Saber Tooth Cat and many others. Unlike some other such extinction events, such as the K/T bolide impaction, these extinctions were most likely the result of global warming. The series of ice ages proceeding the current warming trend lasted far longer than the warm climate we now have. When the climate changed these creatures could not adapt.

At one point in earth's history it was so much warmer, during the Devonian, that humans would have to live at the poles, and even then it would be like Atlanta in August all the time. The point is there have been, and will continue to be, drastic swings in earth's climate.

Does this mean we should dramatically alter our lifestyles in a knee jerk reactionary manner to the doom and gloomers? I say no. However it must be said that we are having an influence on this natural cycle, and to not accept this could be regrettable. If we do not adapt to this changing climate, whether natural or assisted by man, we are in trouble. We have no choice but to adapt or follow the millions of species that have proceeded us into extinction.

Sorry to ramble so, but times could get interesting...

RS

[Crofter]

RogerAS; Mankind adapt? Surely you jest! We were given dominion over the land and all its creatures; things will just have to adapt to our liking or they can shove off! Mankind is the chosen species and not subject to the forces that commonly dictate a species interaction with the environment at large.

[lowspeedlife]

Hi Roger, while I agree that things are changing, I don't believe that it is human beings that are causing the changes. I believe it's just the earth's cycles. The global warming alarmists are more than likely just after your cash, look at good ol' Al Gore, if he were really concerned about it he wouldn't be using 6 times a normal homes power in his house, & then making lame excuses that he provides for "carbon offsets" to make up for his usage. As I have said before (maybe not here) water vapor is a much better greeen house gas that carbon is, so why aren't they (the alarmists) worried about water vapor? It's because they can't figure out how to tax you on the water vapor you produce, they can't figure out how to measure it, but carbon they can. burn a gallon of gas, Heat your home, watch TV, use anything that takes power & they can measure that & tax you accordingly. People have only been burning hydrocarbons for a little over 100 years & only on a large scale since after WWII, so all this "damage" would have to have been done in about 55 to 60 years, just doesn't seem reasonable to me. Besides the number one factor in controling the earths climate is the sun, recently there have not been any sun spots & things are cooling now, even the climate "scientists" have stated that things are cooling. they just say it's temporary & i'm sure it is, but it's not up to us when it begins to warm again, it's all up to the sun.

Rant over, & thanks for your reply to my original post.

Scott R.

[RogerAS]

Hi Roger, while I agree that things are changing, I don't believe that it is human beings that are causing the changes. I believe it's just the earth's cycles. The global warming alarmists are more than likely just after your cash, look at good ol' Al Gore, if he were really concerned about it he wouldn't be using 6 times a normal homes power in his house, & then making lame excuses that he provides for "carbon offsets" to make up for his usage. As I have said before (maybe not here) water vapor is a much better greeen house gas that carbon is, so why aren't they (the alarmists) worried about water vapor? It's because they can't figure out how to tax you on the water vapor you produce, they can't figure out how to measure it, but carbon they can. burn a gallon of gas, Heat your home, watch TV, use anything that takes power & they can measure that & tax you accordingly. People have only been burning hydrocarbons for a little over 100 years & only on a large scale since after WWII, so all this "damage" would have to have been done in about 55 to 60 years, just doesn't seem reasonable to me. Besides the number one factor in controling the earths climate is the sun, recently there have not been any sun spots & things are cooling now, even the climate "scientists" have stated that things are cooling. they just say it's temporary & i'm sure it is, but it's not up to us when it begins to warm again, it's all up to the sun.

Rant over, & thanks for your reply to my original post.

Scott R.

Hey Scott,

The thing is we are doing things, as a species, that go well beyond just the carbon released from fossil fuels. The deforestation of vast swaths of South America and Indonesia are surely influencing the global climate. If one removes the source of carbon absorbing rain forests AND accelerates the release of fossil carbon there will be an impact. How much impact remains to be seen, but logic dictates this is not a good practice.

I agree completely that political hogwaste is playing far too large a role in these issues. Until China and India are willing to make sweeping changes any effort the rest of the world makes to clean up things is moot. I don't expect any serious efforts from them in the near future, nor do I foresee them embracing practices that limits their growing economies or populations.

Most alarming, to me, is that the world's oceans are becoming more and more acidic. If we kill a large percentage of the photo/phyto plankton by increasing the carbon content therein we are in far more trouble than if we increase the atmospheric mean temperature. These micro-organisms are responsible for not only the entire food chain within the ocean, but they release far more oxygen into the air than all of the land plants by several orders of magnitude. Also many of these organisms employ carbon to construct their shells/bodies, and if they stop sequestering free carbon the cycle will spiral upwards rapidly.

IMO we humans need to be much better stewards of our world than we have been. I don't expect this will happen any time soon, as greed and poverty drive people to think of immediate needs above any future benefits. In the later case I support the poor people of this world to do whatever it takes to feed their children. In the former case I see no way to change the dark side human nature.

Time will reveal just how much influence human activity is playing in the climate. I just hope we have the resourcefulness to adapt to the changes our world is experiencing no matter the cause. If we can alter/diminish our use of fossil fuels, which are a finite resource, it can only be for the good of all humanity in the long run. If the world is warming as a result of natural causes it makes no sense at all to add to the problem, and potentially speed our own extinction.

RS