The solutions are fairly simple.
I remember during one of the elections in the 1980's, a Republican candidate wen to Detroit and got the auto workers all in a tizzy by saying that the Dem candidate was going to take their jobs away by insisting on raising the fuel efficiency of the cars they make.
I mean seriously, how many jobs are going to be lost by building a 60 MPG vehicle vice a 15MPG vehicle. You are still going to need someone to put a bumper on the car. In fact, Detroit auto makers have lost market share because they continue to build obsolete SUVs.
For crying out loud, THINK people.
Science84, at the risk of being repetitious (maybe some of you have read this), I have pasted here below the response I gave to Joe Soul on "Where are the bees?" It addresses global warming. I think you're all right. We should stop complaining and start looking at surviving. It's much more serious than just the temperature going up. I think this is part of a much larger planetary cycle that we may be speeding up by a few years, but inevitable. I wish I could talk more but got to work... It's going to take a lot more careful thought than electric cars... And I'm gratified to see there are some enlightened thinkers in this discussion.
I don't have time right now to do the research but I will soon. It's a very big subject, obviously. I have done some minimal research on the Mayan calendar, enough to convince me it's true. Our entire calendar is based on the Mayan calendar, 365 days/year, 7 days a week, etc. I'm an astrologer and the actual astronimical configuration makes sense that it would be a major change for the earth. Why should we be surprised that the earth has cycles when we do? Where is earth's history, or should I say our history on it? The planetary raising of the Kundalini brings about upheaval, as it does for an individual. Hence the wars and storms. It brings up past lives, the buried animosity. (Of course, Iraq is about oil but they are inciting people to violence using deep past divisions.) I have become convinced of this beginning with looking for where I want to buy a house, and I got the I AM America map, which is supposed to show what will be left of the United States after the California earthquake (which even the government is preparing for). Have you seen it? I recommend getting the Six Map Scenario. In it is recounted *possible* coming events, but says if you see these things happening, you will know it's starting. Some of those things are the government going bankrupt due to weather disaster funding, a man coming out of the East in the Middle East (Iran), etc. I can't get any more into it. I work at night and I need to work. I recommend this map at www.Iamamerica.com. Keep an open mind. The maximum number of people need to survive, along with their techology, knowledge, skills. I am planning much bigger activity on this. You will hear from me in the future. The map isn't totally accurate. I live in Montana, and the (map guys) even say that they agree the Yellowstone supervolcano will go off (not on the map).
Have you heard about the mitochondrial DNA bottleneck? Shortly after they discovered the Yellowstone supervolcano (by satellite because it could not be seen from down here), geneticists discovered that our mitochondrial (female) DNA (which can trace the mother's lineage) indicates that everyone on earth has descended from approximately *30* women. THey trace this bottleneck back to about 650,000 years ago, if I remember correctly, I believe the same period that they say is the last time Yellowstone went off. This is science.
**It is possible to survive so let's plan on it.**
You make a good case...
However, the question ultimately is this...does CO2 cause global warming? If it does then what should we do?
Should we attempt to cease all "man made" CO2 output? Considering the fact that all of civilization has developed during the relatively short inter-glacial period that we are in now, couldn't reducing CO2 levels put us "back on track" thus allowing the next glacial advance? At it's last peak, permanent ice flows existed as far south as Pennsylvania. Would this be a favorable outcome?
Again, if we establish that CO2 is a contributing factor then we might want to determine what, if any, above the "natural variations" we might want to contribute to avoid a next advance if at all possible. Without going into detail, NOTHING, aside from nuclear holocaust, could be worse for man than another advance.
Unfortunately, the data I have seen indicate that CO2 has little effect on global warming. It correlates roughly to temperature fluctuations but actually has a delay of as much as 800 years which would indicate that the warming came first, then the higher CO2 levels followed.
A few questions...
If superposition is at play now, why was it warmer 1000 years ago? Eric the Red cultivated on a place he named Greenland...too cold to do that now.
Why are the ice caps receding on Mars also?
Why was the planet locked in an ice age (as it is now) during the Late Ordovician Period when CO2 levels were over 4400 ppm (12 times higher than today)?
I do not agree that reducing CO2 emissions will save us money. In the long run, we must find viable alternatives to fossil fuels but not because of the CO2 factor. I am all for reducing pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant by the way), saving forests, reducing land fill waste, etc., but this global warming scare mongering has got to be put in check. If we look take into account our planet's long history, we will see that CO2 levels have mostly been higher than today, excluding the late Paleozoic. So perhaps the reducing of CO2 emissions will do very little to help control climate. We live on a planet with a long and diverse history. Climates have changed in the past, continue to change now, and will do so in the future, regardless of what we do.
Yes! You are so right! This is part of a much larger earth cycle. Did you read my (long) note above? It's about #12 or so. I'm so glad people are seeing through the fear-mongering. I also want an electric car, etc. But, that's not going to do much.
Eric the Red
Still with Eric and the boys of summer in Greenland I see.
Much more research is required to understand a very complex physical phenomenon. At first blush evidence shows not just rising global climate temperature but an unprecedented acceleration in the change beginning in 1850. This date happens to coincide with the beginning of the industrial revolution.
It's not the rise in global climate temperature that causes concern its the acceleration. The acceleration indicates a new actor in climate change.
its the acceleration. The acceleration indicates a new actor in climate change.
it really is amazing how people just want to ignore the fact that we are influencing things
and if we don't start taking some actions we will reach a point of no return... but hey...long as I have gas for my hot rod..right :-(
Prior to 1850 weren't we in a little ice age (mean temperatures lower than 'normal')? Was there not a cooling off period from the late 40's to the early 70's? If we compare mean temps now to, say 1100 a.d., how dramatic is this 'acceleration'?
I watched a show recently on the discovery channel where a scientist was discussing the advance and retreat of a particular glacier in Canada (can't remember the name) but he noted that it had receeded much farther than today around 5,000 years ago due to warming. Even Dr Neil Frank noted that we need at least 1000 years of data to determine if CO2 has any influence. But again the geoligic record indicates otherwise.
Are you referring to CO2? Have you studied paleo-climatology?
no and no.... just that we need to take a good look at all the crap we are throwing up in the air...
have you been to the grand canyon lately?... the air is dirty from the smog out of cali.
I have to go with TFC on what he says on this issue.... and he'll tell ya... I don't always agree with him
I'll look at the site .. thanks..
Splantyboy's Little Ice Age
Ok, you all can take a look at this one. You tell me about temperature changes.
Interesting link. At least it appears honest:
"Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fifth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, (like during the medieval warming period) but are unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot."
So what part was I wrong about?....Little ice age? Cooling period? LONG-TERM temps? Canadian glaciers?
Or is it just easy to say I am wrong because we disagree?
approximately 300 years
The time average is 30 years because climate is a 30 year average of weather.
The chart goes to 2000 not 2004. The data alone make the point without their projection that is quite logical because climate change takes a while to turn over or change direction.
We are freezing!
65 million years ago the atmosphere was a soup of greenhouse gases. But if you notice that the rates of change throughout all those samples none have the accelerated rate that we are experiencing. Why are we experiencing such change now and over such a short time scale? We have a new actor and we need research to determine what or who that actor is.
we are a long way from saying it is a fact that humans are responsible
Correct, the data does show that there is a new actor but human activity may not be the only possibility; it's a good start though. If we do cut back CO2 production, that is highly unlikely, we may demonstrate the connection but there could still be another unknown.