Global Warming scientists stranded by ........ICE

[Moveon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

For those that missed it the first time or chose not to read it.

One of the foot notes in the link above for those that missed it. Think Katrina And Sandy.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ly-bad-weather

Hint: this is more interesting reading that reading about cow farts!

[DJD]

One of the foot notes in the link above for those that missed it. Think Katrina And Sandy.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ly-bad-weather

Hint: this is more interesting reading that reading about cow farts!

I read the article and it still seems that the scientists are always hedging their bets. Phrases like--attribution, in some cases, it seems, could be a fluke, isn't a long enough track record and so on.

I become a skeptic from phrases like that because I can read this and see how it actually may bolster my side of how you have to assume and have faith that this data could mean or may link bad weather to GW.

You see we can only go back to a certain time in history to compare those records kept or data from other means to now. It's such a short time frame in our history. Saying things like last year was the driest summer since 1895 or we had the worse season of intense hurricanes 2000 doesn't mean it was all GW and the article says that. It also states that you have to use "attribution" factor which to me means they put the data together and attribute their data to other findings. I'm saying maybe their findings may not be as generous to their bottom line if this attributing factor was less or not as potent?

I seem to remember more than one story out there through the years that said some scientists did "cook" the books to make their findings more compelling. What attributing values did they use? Know what I mean? Why would people who survive off donations and gubment money not want to prove they are in fact getting results that leans toward proving some idea? Just saying....

These next few sentences jumped out at me....see what I mean how they admit it's challenging and tough but if you toss in their "attibuting " factors it helps explain things.

"An approach that climate scientists call “attribution” may help explain this apparent rise in extremes. Initially, attribution studies looked for the drivers of climate change over decades, using computer simulations of climate and statistical analyses of past conditions. Such studies have helped show that human activities are contributing to rising temperatures, by establishing that observed changes cannot be explained without including the effect of greenhouse gases."

Another section of the article based on some studies....

"Neither of those studies tried to link these trends to global warming or associated human activities. That’s where attribution science steps in, and it’s challenging"

Scouting for a climate-change signature within transient events lasting just months and affecting only a small part of the globe is equivalent to hunting for a faint fingerprint amid the heavy boot prints of weather’s natural variability."

I still say its not cut and dry to being a crisis mode of GW. I find it pretty convenient that any findings from a snapshot of historical data compared to a short amount of time in the present can be made to look the way you want it. The article is quick to say that one storm or cold snap may not be attributed to GW. Also, like the following copied quote shows there is still some doubt that I think gets glazed over by uber proponents of GW. I said it before it's so easy to hint or say maybe, but or could be when on either side of this topic.

"One problem: Natural variability in Earth’s climate makes some years warmer than others, says Richard Seager of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. “The dominant features,” he notes, “are El Ni±os, during which the global mean temperature goes up, and [countervailing] La Ni±a events where the global mean temperature goes down.” But other factors — from volcanic eruptions and local cloudiness to human-caused changes like urban development and crop irrigation — can also affect winds, rainfall and sunlight.
This variability tends to smooth out on the global scale, as local effects blend together. “But as you move to smaller spatial and temporal scales,” Seager says, “the amount of random variability in climate gets bigger and bigger relative to any global-warming signal.”
He says that’s why attribution studies have largely focused on weather events that tend to be regionally broad and long-lived."

I still find it more than interesting as to why these scientists became stuck in ice. After reading an article like the one you posted one would think we are destined to all kinds of extreme heat but here we get a story of people in this field getting stuck in ice that is thicker and larger in mass then they thought was possible....it's ironic huh?

[Moveon]

All valid points. Yes there is reason to be cautious. Expecially in how we try to solve the problem.

I too was wondering why the ice is so thick at the South Pole in the summer months. BTW I just read today that the two ships that were stuck in the freed themselves and are on their way back to Austria where it's having a record heat wave this summer.

We all know that the earth rotes on it's axis now days and that it's not flat. We know that the Earth orbits around the sun not the other way around. And we all should know that the weather system on this Earth is complex but that it's created by the sunlight hitting the earth up and warming it while at the same time the heat energy is radiated back out into space and that there is a equilibrium that's ever changing due to the earth spinning. One part of the earth is in sunlight and the other in darkness. The Air and I guess the molten rock below the Earth's Crust along with the Ocean waters help redistribute the heat energy from the Sun and molten rock. We don't really know what's heating the inner earth, perhaps it's radio active elements that are decaying or something.

But we should all know that it's a very complex system. Looking at one point on earth at one point in time is not really indicative to the overall average temperatures on earth over time.

Just because the ship got stuck in the ice does not mean that Global Warming is not real and that the earth is not getting warmer. Remember by warmer they mean on average the earth is warming up one or two degree. But that's a averge for the entire global. Both the hot side facing the sun and the cold side away from the sun. Both the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. From one point in the time zone to all the others. Take them all and add them together and divide by the number or data points and get the Average Temperature.

While in Historically time our written records of the Temperatures on this Earth may seem insignificant to some it doesn't mean that we won't have a problem with Global warming in the future. But like I said I won't be here hopfully when that happens. But what about your kids and grandkids?

What I worry about is the extreme weather that has been predicted by these scientists. I can see where adding more energy to the entire global system could easily stir the pot and create more intense storms.

There was one thing I do remember studying in Geology. There were two thoughts on how the earth changed over the eons. The Catastrophic thought people and the other one that said things happen over long periods of time. I remember that I gave more credence to the latter. But then again the could be catastrophic events that happened all at one time. We just don't know for sure why or how the earth cooled down in the past and allowed the Glaciers to come all the way down to Indiana. All we know is that they did. We find evidence of the Glaciers on the exposed bedrock where the glacial till inside the ice scraped away the top soil and left groves in the igneous rocks at the surface. And the great lakes were created when the Glacier's retreated back up north as the Earth warmed up.

I personally would watch the ice sheets at the poles and on top of the mountains to see how they react to the Earth warming up or cooling down. If they melt and start to recede back up to the mountain tops then the Earth is warming up. If they advance back down the Mountain the Earth is cooling off. Most of the ice sheets are receding which is why I took notice of this issue a few years ago. Before that I generally just ignore all the hoopla.

Oh well I killed another boring day of cold weather. Wish it would warm up so that I could get back out and go fishing again. This freezing cold weather really is the pits. At least I got my truck fixed where it starts in cold weather now.

I still find it more than interesting as to why these scientists became stuck in ice. After reading an article like the one you posted one would think we are dned to all kinds of extreme heat but here we get a story of people in this field getting stuck in ice that is thicker and larger in mass then they thought was possible....it's ironic huh?[/QUOTE]

[roadrunner]

Evidently you didn't read the information in the link I provided to Wikipedia. But that's ok. I didn't expect some of you to see the facts when they are right there in your face.

You show how silly you are when you talk about "Dinosaur Flatulence". That's going down to 3 rd grade level of intelligence. Funny fart jokes are funny but they don't counter any real facts from the real climate scientists at NOAA or the Academy of Science. If you really would like to know how the scientist figure out the climate of the earth in the past just ask a Geologist how they do it. You can probably go to the Geology Dept of either Purdue University or Indiana University or any other University such as UK or Louisville that has a Geology Dept. You could take a Historical Geology Class and learn about this too. That's what I did. There are paleontologists that study the plant and pollen fossil in the different strata of the earth and determine the type of plants that grow in certain climates and where they died and how long ago they died. Organic matter starts to decay after death and the remains of plant material can be carbon dated to determine when it was alive and when it died. The location and depth gives us clues as to when they were buried. The lower layers were deposited first and the upper layers were laid down on top. So that gives the Geologist a time line. Deep sedimentary rock is older than the sedimentary rocks at the surface. But I don't know why I'm wasting time trying to tell you this. It's probably going in one ear and out the other. Suffice it to say that the people that really can do something about this know what's going on with the Global Warming. Which is why Obama is letting the USEPA regulate CO2 emissions via the Clean Air Act. The US Supreme Court has already agreed that the USEPA can regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant that can be controlled by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

I'm not saying that it's all man made. I don't deny that man is contributing to the problem though. There is a reason why the Earth has started warming more so since the start of the Industrial Revolution and when man started burning coal. What you don't know is that I've studied the burning of coal since the late 1970's and did surveys on how much coal was burned in our area and calculated the emissions that resulted from burning that coal. And I didn't even add the largest coal fired power plants in my survey. The State of Indiana IDEM did that via their own emission survey. And the data was provided by the Power Plants themselves. So if anything the amount of coal burned was probably under reported. And these Emission Surveys are conducted by all the states and reported to USEPA every few years.

I fail to see how cows passing gas proves anything you have to say about Global Warming. It's true that thousands of cows and other animals contribute small amounts of green House gases. Again you resort to the 3 grade level fart jokes, which is funny, but not really helping the discussion in any serous way. If you can't elevate your debate points to above the fart jokes then no one will take you seriously. They may find you funny but they won't you intellectual. Facts are facts and cows do produce methane. Large Feed lots produce a lot of methane gas. So do feed lots with pigs and other farm animals. But they pale in comparison to the amount of CO2 Green House gas that's produced hourly by a big coal fired boiler at a power plant. Funny but really insignificant in the discussion.

Left wing flakes. Now how does that help contribute to a serious discussion of the facts? I know a few right wing flakes on Fixed News but that really has nothing to do with a good discussion on whether the earth is getting warmer or not. Warming since man started keeping records.

What does Al Gore have to do with Global Warming. He is just the messenger and is saying the very same thing that (97% of the Climate Scientists are telling us. Al gore is not lying he is just stating facts. The people who call Al Gore a liar are the real problem IMHO. Those on the right that mock the truth are the problem not Al or Obama.

The facts are the facts and making fun of them or the people to tell us about the facts won't change anything.

Me personally I could give crap about what we do to prevent Global Warming. I'm not really for trying to control the CO2 emissions as I think it may cost way too much and have little effect on reversing Global Warming. I'm not going to be around when the **** hit the fan. It's not going to have any affect on me that I can see other than more and stronger storms. But hell I've already lived though a tornado and if the good lord wants to take me I really can't do nothing to stop him.

But the people that live along the coast may want to think about what they are going to do the next time another Katrana or Sandy floods them out for weeks at a time. And according to the people that actually know what they are talking about the floods and storms are getting more frequent and stronger with the increase in the Earth's Temperatures. Increase temperature is nothing more than an increase in energy in the system.

But it's really silly to try to deny that the Earth is actually getting warmer over the last few hundred years. Making dino fart jokes will not change that fact.

Here we go again you say you can not deny fact that they Re facts. If you base your predictions on facts and do not look at history and understand that weather is cyclical in nature then we would be in an ice age as my professor at the University of Illinois said we could not grow corn now in Illinois if we continue cooling at the rate we are going. That we're the facts then jack so if we can't deny the facts why are we growing corn in Illinois. Also Gore did lie so much in his book they banned it in Europe if I remember right. Also scientist have admitted to-misrepresenting facts to get grant money.

[Devils Horse]

Evidently you didn't read the information in the link I provided to Wikipedia. But that's ok. I didn't expect some of you to see the facts when they are right there in your face.

You show how silly you are when you talk about "Dinosaur Flatulence". That's going down to 3 rd grade level of intelligence. Funny fart jokes are funny but they don't counter any real facts from the real climate scientists at NOAA or the Academy of Science. If you really would like to know how the scientist figure out the climate of the earth in the past just ask a Geologist how they do it. You can probably go to the Geology Dept of either Purdue University or Indiana University or any other University such as UK or Louisville that has a Geology Dept. You could take a Historical Geology Class and learn about this too. That's what I did. There are paleontologists that study the plant and pollen fossil in the different strata of the earth and determine the type of plants that grow in certain climates and where they died and how long ago they died. Organic matter starts to decay after death and the remains of plant material can be carbon dated to determine when it was alive and when it died. The location and depth gives us clues as to when they were buried. The lower layers were deposited first and the upper layers were laid down on top. So that gives the Geologist a time line. Deep sedimentary rock is older than the sedimentary rocks at the surface. But I don't know why I'm wasting time trying to tell you this. It's probably going in one ear and out the other. Suffice it to say that the people that really can do something about this know what's going on with the Global Warming. Which is why Obama is letting the USEPA regulate CO2 emissions via the Clean Air Act. The US Supreme Court has already agreed that the USEPA can regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant that can be controlled by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

I'm not saying that it's all man made. I don't deny that man is contributing to the problem though. There is a reason why the Earth has started warming more so since the start of the Industrial Revolution and when man started burning coal. What you don't know is that I've studied the burning of coal since the late 1970's and did surveys on how much coal was burned in our area and calculated the emissions that resulted from burning that coal. And I didn't even add the largest coal fired power plants in my survey. The State of Indiana IDEM did that via their own emission survey. And the data was provided by the Power Plants themselves. So if anything the amount of coal burned was probably under reported. And these Emission Surveys are conducted by all the states and reported to USEPA every few years.

I fail to see how cows passing gas proves anything you have to say about Global Warming. It's true that thousands of cows and other animals contribute small amounts of green House gases. Again you resort to the 3 grade level fart jokes, which is funny, but not really helping the discussion in any serous way. If you can't elevate your debate points to above the fart jokes then no one will take you seriously. They may find you funny but they won't you intellectual. Facts are facts and cows do produce methane. Large Feed lots produce a lot of methane gas. So do feed lots with pigs and other farm animals. But they pale in comparison to the amount of CO2 Green House gas that's produced hourly by a big coal fired boiler at a power plant. Funny but really insignificant in the discussion.

Left wing flakes. Now how does that help contribute to a serious discussion of the facts? I know a few right wing flakes on Fixed News but that really has nothing to do with a good discussion on whether the earth is getting warmer or not. Warming since man started keeping records.

What does Al Gore have to do with Global Warming. He is just the messenger and is saying the very same thing that (97% of the Climate Scientists are telling us. Al gore is not lying he is just stating facts. The people who call Al Gore a liar are the real problem IMHO. Those on the right that mock the truth are the problem not Al or Obama.

The facts are the facts and making fun of them or the people to tell us about the facts won't change anything.

Me personally I could give crap about what we do to prevent Global Warming. I'm not really for trying to control the CO2 emissions as I think it may cost way too much and have little effect on reversing Global Warming. I'm not going to be around when the **** hit the fan. It's not going to have any affect on me that I can see other than more and stronger storms. But hell I've already lived though a tornado and if the good lord wants to take me I really can't do nothing to stop him.

But the people that live along the coast may want to think about what they are going to do the next time another Katrana or Sandy floods them out for weeks at a time. And according to the people that actually know what they are talking about the floods and storms are getting more frequent and stronger with the increase in the Earth's Temperatures. Increase temperature is nothing more than an increase in energy in the system.

But it's really silly to try to deny that the Earth is actually getting warmer over the last few hundred years. Making dino fart jokes will not change that fact.

Climate change scientists came up with bovine flatulence, not me. Are you calling them silly?

Most in this thread agree trends indicate global warming, we can read as well as you. I admit I didn't read your reference on wiki, too lazy.

Pound the drum and be indignant all you want, like many others, I don't buy man being the cause of GW. I've seen just too many 'legitimate' experts be dead wrong too many times on issues far less complex than this.

You can also ridicule and pretend higher ground till the cows come home, and you can't deny the multi billion dollar industry this issue has become.

BTW, Al Gore is not the messenger, he is a freakin hypocrite and an oaf.

[Moveon]

Anyone who thinks that Al is a Oaf is wrong. He speaks the truth about many thing and gets a lot of heat for his views. I doubt that what you say about him matters to him very much. He's big enough to take the heat and still tell the truth.

Why would I deny that it's an industry to try and solve Global Warming Problems. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing to solve the problem of Global Warming. Turning to greener energy energy is a good thing and I"m all for getting off fossil fuels as soon as we can.

You brought up the point of Cow farts in your first post. So why did you focus on that instead of the CO2 emission coming from fossil fuels? I just pointed out this fact that you focused on cow farts instead of the CO2 emissions. Nothing wrong with my doing that. It tells me where you are coming from.

I not pounding any drums. I don't even own a drum set. And I'm not being indigent, I'm telling the truth.

The bottom line is that you didn't deny that global warming was real and that it's happening. That's all I'm really saying. The rest of my comments were simply defensive.

Al Gore is the messenger and not the devil. There is a big difference.

Climate change scientists came up with bovine flatulence, not me. Are you calling them silly?

Most in this thread agree trends indicate global warming, we can read as well as you. I admit I didn't read your reference on wiki, too lazy.

Pound the drum and be indignant all you want, like many others, I don't buy man being the cause of GW. I've seen just too many 'legitimate' experts be dead wrong too many times on issues far less complex than this.

You can also ridicule and pretend higher ground till the cows come home, and you can't deny the multi billion dollar industry this issue has become.

BTW, Al Gore is not the messenger, he is a freakin hypocrite and an oaf.

[roadrunner]

Al Gorge is not an oaf because he has fooled a lot of people and made millions from his crap. He is a huge hypocrite he owned seven houses and jets all over the world on private jets and drives suv's. If he was a true believer he would change his life style. Al Gore has an enormous carbon foot print.

[Devils Horse]

Anyone who thinks that Al is a Oaf is wrong. He speaks the truth about many thing and gets a lot of heat for his views. I doubt that what you say about him matters to him very much. He's big enough to take the heat and still tell the truth.

Why would I deny that it's an industry to try and solve Global Warming Problems. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing to solve the problem of Global Warming. Turning to greener energy energy is a good thing and I"m all for getting off fossil fuels as soon as we can.

You brought up the point of Cow farts in your first post. So why did you focus on that instead of the CO2 emission coming from fossil fuels? I just pointed out this fact that you focused on cow farts instead of the CO2 emissions. Nothing wrong with my doing that. It tells me where you are coming from.

I not pounding any drums. I don't even own a drum set. And I'm not being indigent, I'm telling the truth.

The bottom line is that you didn't deny that global warming was real and that it's happening. That's all I'm really saying. The rest of my comments were simply defensive.

Al Gore is the messenger and not the devil. There is a big difference.

I focused on the last news story I heard about GW on the radio in my truck...cow farts. I found it amusing and indicative of who makes up the foundation of the GW brigade. For the last time, your people have brought it up as a serious issue...several times. Try as you might you can't hang cow farts message on me, I'm only the messenger.

You, on the other hand focus on carbon emissions because the likes of Al Gore says you should.

I agree we should convert to green energy, but not because the GW crowd says so, because we will eventually run out of non replenishable (not sure that's a word) energy.

There is a lot wrong with how they're going about solving GW. So much so, I could type all day. Big Al trots his giant ass carbon footprint about the world taking money and carrying the message. Global GW conferences are held and those absolutely brilliant Europeans come up with great ideas like carbon taxes and other ways for them to get money.

And after all that jet fuel is pissed away, money collected, and great ideas hatched, what has been accomplished? Not a **** thing, because the earth's climate is cyclic. Always was, always will be.

See. We agree on almost everything.

Al Gore is an opportunist not a messenger. There is a VERY BIG difference.

[Moveon]

You, on the other hand focus on carbon emissions because the likes of Al Gore says you should.

I don't follow Al Gore. I was focused on Carbon Emissions long before AL Gore became involved in Green House Gases. So you might say that Al is just giving the message to you and the others. He is just a messenger not really the guy who figured that Global Warming was an issue. But he did listen to the Climate Scientist and was smart enough to understand the long term implications of Global Warming. If he invested in things related to solving the problem of Global Warming then he was smart to do that. But he is not the problem. Too many people and industrial revolution is the problem.

Here is something to think about if you have kids and they plan on having kids and a future on this planet. If the problem of Global Warming is not caused by mankind and only by God or nature then how are your grandkids going to survive if WE humans are powerless to fix or reverse Global Warming? Think about that for a while. What if we can't do any thing about it? We are screwed then if we can't fix or reverse in in the future. while it may be a few hundred years before it gets too serious or bad it will happen if our populations continue to double every 30 years and we burn more and more fossil fuels.

On the other hand it it's caused or exasperated by mankind then we can do something to stop the problem. We could switch to alternative fuels someday in the future and wean ourselves off the fossil fuels that we believe are adding to the amount of CO2 and other green house gases in the atmosphere. We do know for sure that too much CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the heat waves from radiating back into space. Just like the glass windows in a car keep the heat inside the car on a sunny day. That's the green house effect. Again I'm talking about AVERAGE temperature over long periods of time and over large expanses of the earth. I'm not talking about a specific point on the Earth and one specific time. Winter time in our Northern Hemisphere can't be soled out to say that Global Warming is not a problem. Nor can we say that a hot summer day in our Northern Hemisphere in the middle of July is indicative of the Worlds Average Temperatures.

I guess what really matters if you think about it is the average temperature where we now have ice. Because that ice if it melts will flow to the sea and add to the sea level and the energy levels (temps) of the oceans. But then again we need to be concerned with our average temps in the middle latitudes when it comes to food production. (farming) And the same thing can be said about the Southern Hemisphere middle lattitudes as well. They grow produce and food down there too.

Katrina was a result of the land around New Orleans sinking. Less sediment is being deposited in the delta due to the damming up of the rivers that flow down to the Gulf of Mexico. The dams slow down the river and allow the sediment to fall out and settle onto the bottom of the river before it gets to the Gulf. And then the ocean levels have risen over the years so that New Orleans is closer to the ocean's level today vs a few hundred years ago. Which is why when you walk along the levee in New Orleans you look up at the River level.



I vote for the latter and hope for mankind's sake that we can figure out a solution before the oceans get too high and the glacial ice all melts. The rate of melting can speed up if too much dark earth is exposed at the polar regions.

Finally Al Gore is the messenger and a very good one at that! Smart people listen to what he has to say about the problems of Global Warming and take heed to try to fix the problem before it becomes worse.

Like I said before the US Supreme Court agreed that CO2 is a pollutant and that the USEPA should regulate it. And that's exactly what's going to happen IMHO. I'm really not so sure that it will help but they are going to try.

I'll leave it to the climate scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency to figure this out. They are smarter than you and I and all the rest who posted opinions on this issue.



There is a lot wrong with how they're going about solving GW. So much so, I could type all day. Big Al trots his giant ass carbon footprint about the world taking money and carrying the message. Global GW conferences are held and those absolutely brilliant Europeans come up with great ideas like carbon taxes and other ways for them to get money.

And after all that jet fuel is pissed away, money collected, and great ideas hatched, what has been accomplished? Not a **** thing, because the earth's climate is cyclic. Always was, always will be.

See. We agree on almost everything.

Al Gore is an opportunist not a messenger. There is a VERY BIG difference.[/QUOTE]

[roadrunner]

Move on I am going to type this real slow so maybe you can understand it In 1967 or there about we were told we were entering another ice age then because weather patterns are cyclic in nature, it switched to a warming pattern and now I think it is beginning a cooling pattern and you are working to reverse a warming trend. I think we would all be better off if we stayed out of trying to change mother nature, she is very resourceful and can adapt if given a chance. I think God created her that way.

Second Katrina was a hurricane like Bob had nothing to do with New Orleans sinking New Orleans has always been below water level and the dam pump broke and the corp had not maintained the levy. Before man started farming there was almost no sediment deposited in the delta and New Orleans did not sink.

[Moveon]

Global Warming contributes to excessive energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. More energy means that bigger storms and more storms are created. The connection is similar to a baseball player taking steroids and then hitting more home runs. The connection is easy to see if you open your eyes.

Katrian was not ordinary hurricane. It was bigger and more destructive. And it's a well know fact that New Orleans is below sea level. People have been predicting the flooding of New Orleans for years now. Everyone knew that if a hurricane hit in the New Orleans area it would flood the city if it was a big hurricane. The disaster of Katrina was predicted years before it happened. Why do you think that they build all those levees around the city. They were built to protect if from a storm of magnitude 3 not 5. Katrina has much more energy and was bigger than what the levees were built to handle.

And the subways in New York City were flooded by Sandy. That's never happened before. Why? Because there is more energy in the environment and bigger storms than in the past. And the ocean levels are higher today than in the past. We have been warming for a long time since the last ice age but the rate of warming has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution.

Back when mankind didn't farm most of the USA like today we didn't have 7.2 billion people on this earth needing to be feed and sheltered and kept warm. And we didn't have all the Corp of Engineer Dams on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers trapping more sediment.

The barrier islands are receding as the ocean level rises and the ground washes away and is not replaced by more sediment.

I'm well aware that the earth undergoes natural cooling and warming trends. But in years past we didn't have 7.2 billion humans walking the earth like we have today. We didn't have millions of automobiles putting out emissions along with all the power plants that burn coal, oil and gas thought out the world. Things have changed a lot in the last 200 years and we need to think about the next few hundred years in the future.

The coal won't last forever and it will run out. Then what do you propose our grandkids use for heating their homes and lighting the streets?

At some point in time we will have to develop alternative fuels or power sources to support the expected increase in the number of humans living in the future.

That's what I think about. No one said its going to happen tomorrow or the next day but it going to happen some time. Running out of fossil fuels will happen sooner or later.

I say develop the alternatives now before we run out of the fossil fuels so we can test them and get them ready to use for the future.

We spent millions on going to the moon why not spend a few more on making sure that we have reliable energy sources in the future?

Move on I am going to type this real slow so maybe you can understand it In 1967 or there about we were told we were entering another ice age then because weather patterns are cyclic in nature, it switched to a warming pattern and now I think it is beginning a cooling pattern and you are working to reverse a warming trend. I think we would all be better off if we stayed out of trying to change mother nature, she is very resourceful and can adapt if given a chance. I think God created her that way.

Second Katrina was a hurricane like Bob had nothing to do with New Orleans sinking New Orleans has always been below water level and the dam pump broke and the corp had not maintained the levy. Before man started farming there was almost no sediment deposited in the delta and New Orleans did not sink.

[Devils Horse]

You, on the other hand focus on carbon emissions because the likes of Al Gore says you should.

I don't follow Al Gore. I was focused on Carbon Emissions long before AL Gore became involved in Green House Gases. So you might say that Al is just giving the message to you and the others. He is just a messenger not really the guy who figured that Global Warming was an issue. But he did listen to the Climate Scientist and was smart enough to understand the long term implications of Global Warming. If he invested in things related to solving the problem of Global Warming then he was smart to do that. But he is not the problem. Too many people and industrial revolution is the problem.

Here is something to think about if you have kids and they plan on having kids and a future on this planet. If the problem of Global Warming is not caused by mankind and only by God or nature then how are your grandkids going to survive if WE humans are powerless to fix or reverse Global Warming? Think about that for a while. What if we can't do any thing about it? We are screwed then if we can't fix or reverse in in the future. while it may be a few hundred years before it gets too serious or bad it will happen if our populations continue to double every 30 years and we burn more and more fossil fuels.

On the other hand it it's caused or exasperated by mankind then we can do something to stop the problem. We could switch to alternative fuels someday in the future and wean ourselves off the fossil fuels that we believe are adding to the amount of CO2 and other green house gases in the atmosphere. We do know for sure that too much CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the heat waves from radiating back into space. Just like the glass windows in a car keep the heat inside the car on a sunny day. That's the green house effect. Again I'm talking about AVERAGE temperature over long periods of time and over large expanses of the earth. I'm not talking about a specific point on the Earth and one specific time. Winter time in our Northern Hemisphere can't be soled out to say that Global Warming is not a problem. Nor can we say that a hot summer day in our Northern Hemisphere in the middle of July is indicative of the Worlds Average Temperatures.

I guess what really matters if you think about it is the average temperature where we now have ice. Because that ice if it melts will flow to the sea and add to the sea level and the energy levels (temps) of the oceans. But then again we need to be concerned with our average temps in the middle latitudes when it comes to food production. (farming) And the same thing can be said about the Southern Hemisphere middle lattitudes as well. They grow produce and food down there too.

Katrina was a result of the land around New Orleans sinking. Less sediment is being deposited in the delta due to the damming up of the rivers that flow down to the Gulf of Mexico. The dams slow down the river and allow the sediment to fall out and settle onto the bottom of the river before it gets to the Gulf. And then the ocean levels have risen over the years so that New Orleans is closer to the ocean's level today vs a few hundred years ago. Which is why when you walk along the levee in New Orleans you look up at the River level.



I vote for the latter and hope for mankind's sake that we can figure out a solution before the oceans get too high and the glacial ice all melts. The rate of melting can speed up if too much dark earth is exposed at the polar regions.

Finally Al Gore is the messenger and a very good one at that! Smart people listen to what he has to say about the problems of Global Warming and take heed to try to fix the problem before it becomes worse.

Like I said before the US Supreme Court agreed that CO2 is a pollutant and that the USEPA should regulate it. And that's exactly what's going to happen IMHO. I'm really not so sure that it will help but they are going to try.

I'll leave it to the climate scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency to figure this out. They are smarter than you and I and all the rest who posted opinions on this issue.



There is a lot wrong with how they're going about solving GW. So much so, I could type all day. Big Al trots his giant ass carbon footprint about the world taking money and carrying the message. Global GW conferences are held and those absolutely brilliant Europeans come up with great ideas like carbon taxes and other ways for them to get money.

And after all that jet fuel is pissed away, money collected, and great ideas hatched, what has been accomplished? Not a **** thing, because the earth's climate is cyclic. Always was, always will be.

See. We agree on almost everything.

Al Gore is an opportunist not a messenger. There is a VERY BIG difference.

[/QUOTE]

From the length of your posts, this is an important issue to you, and to a point I respect that.

You are far more trusting of the government and global warming scientists than myself, so I agree to disagree.

You clearly hold Al Gore in much higher esteem than I do, so I agree to strongly disagree.

We are also on opposite ends of the political spectrum, you want more government and regulation; I don't. I agree to disagree.

All things considered we will doubtless butt heads again. Until then, read what roadrunner has to say in the previous post and have a good one.