Well, we can hope that is the case, and/or we can take steps to assure we minimize our negative impact. I know the company I work for (which is German-owned) has aggressive CO2 reduction goals for each plant. We invested in our utility infrastructure last year, and we are enjoying: 1) a reduction in our gas and electric costs; and 2) a reduction in our carbon footprint. Seems like the smart thing to do.

 

Ehhhh ... better to spit in the face of the green movement and burn styrofoam for fuel. Doesn't hurt anything, anyway.

Well, we can hope that is the case, and/or we can take steps to assure we minimize our negative impact. I know the company I work for (which is German-owned) has aggressive CO2 reduction goals for each plant. We invested in our utility infrastructure last year, and we are enjoying: 1) a reduction in our gas and electric costs; and 2) a reduction in our carbon footprint. Seems like the smart thing to do.

 

Those actions that make sense, especially if there is a payback economically. I just do not think that lowering man-made CO2 is really going to save the planet. And those pushing the CO2 agenda seemed as interested in creating a way generate money-from-nothing schemes like the carbon-trading 'market'. Always follow the money.

 

That said, we should be good custodians of space-ship Earth until the next ice-age.

Ehhhh ... better to spit in the face of the green movement and burn styrofoam for fuel. Doesn't hurt anything, anyway.

 

The comment about styrofoam is interesting. A lot recent research indicates that plastic products are creating an environmental nightmare and killing off a lot species in the ocean. Since plactic-based products never really 'decompose' but just get smaller and smaller they become hazards to the small organisms that ingest the broken down plastics. We may not fry ourselves with green house gases but we may very well kill off the food chain if that is left unchecked.

 

And yeah, having accidentally burned a chuck of styrofoam when burning while building a house - its bad!

Arctic explorers in the late 19th century already were making a connection between man-made emissions and climate change.

 

Also, ran across an interesting news story yesterday about the discovery of a new species of porcupine in Brazil. Story pointed out that Brazil's Northeastern Atlantic Forest "has experienced severe degradation, with only two percent of its original forest remaining intact."

 

 

Is such deforestation altering the world's climate? You betcha.

 

Great point. And this may be the greatest environmental disaster of all.

Those actions that make sense, especially if there is a payback economically. I just do not think that lowering man-made CO2 is really going to save the planet. And those pushing the CO2 agenda seemed as interested in creating a way generate money-from-nothing schemes like the carbon-trading 'market'. Always follow the money.

 

That said, we should be good custodians of space-ship Earth until the next ice-age.

 

Thank you.

What would the media reaction be if this happened today instead of the 1930s? Would Global Warming get the blame?

 

The unusually wet period, which encouraged increased settlement and cultivation in the Great Plains, ended in 1930. This was the year in which an extended and severe drought began which caused crops to fail, leaving the plowed fields exposed to wind erosion. The fine soil of the Great Plains was easily eroded and carried east by strong continental winds.

 

On November 11, 1933, a very strong dust storm stripped topsoil from desiccated South Dakota farmlands in just one of a series of bad dust storms that year. Then, beginning on May 9, 1934, a strong, two-day dust storm removed massive amounts of Great Plains topsoil in one of the worst such storms of the Dust Bowl. The dust clouds blew all the way to Chicago, where they deposited 12 million pounds of dust.[9] Two days later, the same storm reached cities in the east, such as Buffalo, Boston, Cleveland, New York City, and Washington, D.C.[10] That winter (1934–1935), red snow fell on New England.

 

On April 14, 1935, known as "Black Sunday", 20 of the worst "black blizzards" occurred throughout the Dust Bowl, causing extensive damage and turning the day to night; witnesses reported they could not see five feet in front of them at certain points.

 

Some would say it is a natural cyclical drought with conditions exacerbated by poor farming prinicipals, poor land use, poor water conservation and poor logging techniques stripping the land of its natural protections.

 

And, keep in mind the global population was 2 billion in 1930, and it is over 7 billion today. We can really make a mess of things today if we want to.

Somebody beat me to it.

 

It isn't so much the CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere as it is the massive deforestation that causes the CO2 not to be scrubbed (in layman's terms).

 

I'm halfway through re-reading a FASCINATING book written in 1992 by Lewis Thomas called "The Fragile Species". Here's an excerpt:

"Meanwhile, the efforts will intensify among the billions of afflicted people to get out of wherever they are and to cross borders into any place where they can sense food and a hope of survival. Those left behind will continue the tropical deforestation already in progress, extinguishing immense ecosystems upon which other species are dependent and causing global climactic changes beyond predicting, jeopardizing the very life of the planet.

 

The greatest danger of all is in our own response. ...we may someday decide that the problem has become insoluble, that the people knocking at our doors with hands outstretched have become enemies at our gates, who can only be coped with by the traditional method of killing them."

Warming slowdown?

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters

^ So temperatures are still rising, but the rise is slower?

^ So temperatures are still rising, but the rise is slower?

Just like Dems complain about spending cuts when spending increases at a slower pace:sssh:.

NASA - CO2 is a coolant.

 

Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

 

Video pointed to in article above on how energy from a Class-X flare added energy to the thermosphere. But much of the energy was deflected - by CO2.

 

Of note in the video at 3:32 - the chart shows the Sun's min-max cycle. The minimum cycle was longer than anticipated and the max is less of a max than previous cycles. We may need to figure out how to keep warm if our main heat source is sputtering.

 

I watched a show over the weekend called "Ice Chasers". Very interesting - they looked at CO2 content in ice core samples, among other things. Amount of CO2 in recent samples is astronomically higher than in much older samples.

 

I still say deforestation will be the bane of us all. No telling how many animal species will be around in a century or two. And if the pollinators start dying off, watch out.

I am an independent. I believe that there are cyclical climatic tendencies, but I believe that man is contributing to an overall warming. The climate may have warmed anyway, but man's influence is speeding that up. People also used to think you could dump any chemical anywhere, and earth would absorb it without any impact. Where did that get us?? Dead Lake Erie for a while, massive pollution in New York state, etc. Finally, we got smarter to that. We need to get wise to what we are putting in the air.

 

The $64,000,000,000,000,000 question is how much is man contributing to the overall warming? Do we know to what degree man is contributing? Are we sure of which actions of man are the major contributors? Folks have mentioned de-forestation. If Toyota was to decide to build a manufacturing plant in eastern Kentucky, which necessitated clearing 150 acres of forest, but created 1,000 jobs paying $30 per hour, should we say no because fo the effect it could have on global warming? What can the US do to stop de-forestation activities in foreign countries? Worth going to war over? What's the price tag on keeping the earth cooler? Will the rising oceans create more estuaries, resulting in more sea food, not less, to eat? If the Outer Banks become sand bars, is that necessarily a bad thing? Why? Polar bears may suffer as a result of global warming, but will other species benefit? If so, is that bad? Man's activities have always had adverse impact on some animal species while benefitting others. Is it realistic to think we can ever have a zero impact on the earth?

The $64,000,000,000,000,000 question is how much is man contributing to the overall warming? Do we know to what degree man is contributing? Are we sure of which actions of man are the major contributors? Folks have mentioned de-forestation. If Toyota was to decide to build a manufacturing plant in eastern Kentucky, which necessitated clearing 150 acres of forest, but created 1,000 jobs paying $30 per hour, should we say no because fo the effect it could have on global warming? What can the US do to stop de-forestation activities in foreign countries? Worth going to war over? What's the price tag on keeping the earth cooler? Will the rising oceans create more estuaries, resulting in more sea food, not less, to eat? If the Outer Banks become sand bars, is that necessarily a bad thing? Why? Polar bears may suffer as a result of global warming, but will other species benefit? If so, is that bad? Man's activities have always had adverse impact on some animal species while benefitting others. Is it realistic to think we can ever have a zero impact on the earth?

 

No. We should say no because there are already tens of thousands of acres where the trees have already been cleared on which they could build. Strip job reclamation.

For those who doubt global warming, what is causing polar ice caps to melt? Why is the ice melting in Greenland? There is clear scientific fact on these items. Global warming is a fact.

 

SMH :no:

It is the natural course that the earth has taken since it's existence. The axis changes slightly all the time and this also contributes.

 

I'm not saying man hasn't contributed, but for those that think this is all man made really need to do their homework.

 

How do you explain the iceage? Then how do you explain the end of the iceage? Was that also man made? Something had to melt all the ice back then.

 

Some scientist going all the way back to 14th century have believed Iceages take place up to every 150 million years and the next one is due in 23,000 years. I'm not going to sit here and debate how old the earth is, all I am doing is showing that many scientist believe it is a natural cycle the earth goes through just like the warming etc.

 

I will leave it with this little tidbit

 

"

But a Harvard earth sciences Professor Peter Huybers has finally proved it, using computer models to test competing ideas - and finding that earth's tilting axis is the only one that works.

The finding could have profound implications for our understanding of our planet's climate - and could, its author says, be crucial to 'predicting long-term changes in future climate.'

Two 'cycles' in the way Earth's axis spins have an effect on the cycle - one lasting 10,000 years and one lasting roughly 40,000 years.

When they align correctly, ice melts. At the other extreme, glaciers advance.

The idea that these could dictate the cycles of glaciation in Earth's climate was first proposed by Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milankovitch in the first half of the twentieth century.

'These periods of deglaciation saw massive climate changes,' Huybers said. 'Sea level increased by 130 meters, temperatures rose by about 5 degrees C, and atmospheric CO2 went from 180 to 280 parts per million.'

We ought to understand what caused these massive changes in past climate if we are to predict long-term changes in future climate with any confidence.'