So, if next year we have the coldest on record does that mean we are heading for an ice age?

 

I don't really care....Just posted some info that I found.

We should take care of our enviornment, but as it has already been said: When somebody claims "the earth is as warmest it has been since..." then obviously it has been this warm before.... I just think that's a poor argument for why it must be our fault.

 

 

If that was the only piece of information, I would agree with you--warmer temps do not, in and of themselves, suggest human activity is the root cause.

 

However, we know that carbon dioxide gas allows short wavelength radiant energy from the sun to pass through, but absorbs some of the long wavelength radiant energy that would otherwise radiate from the earth into space. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped within the atmosphere due to this effect. This is the mechanism suspected to be behind the so-called greenhouse effect. We also know that since the industrial revolution, humans have been pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Humans have also been reducing one natural mechanism (trees) for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it back into oxygen and carbon solids.

 

So, we know that CO2 prevents radiant energy from being reflected back into space and we know that human activity contributes to an increase in the natural balance of CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

For me, that is all I need to know to conclude that human activity is playing a significant role in climate change.

 

 

References:

 

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9020249/carbon-dioxide

 

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

If that was the only piece of information, I would agree with you--warmer temps do not, in and of themselves, suggest human activity is the root cause.

 

However, we know that carbon dioxide gas allows short wavelength radiant energy from the sun to pass through, but absorbs some of the long wavelength radiant energy that would otherwise radiate from the earth into space. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped within the atmosphere due to this effect. This is the mechanism suspected to be behind the so-called greenhouse effect. We also know that since the industrial revolution, humans have been pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Humans have also been reducing one natural mechanism (trees) for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it back into oxygen and carbon solids.

 

So, we know that CO2 prevents radiant energy from being reflected back into space and we know that human activity contributes to an increase in the natural balance of CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

For me, that is all I need to know to conclude that human activity is playing a significant role in climate change.

 

 

References:

 

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9020249/carbon-dioxide

 

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

 

 

SISO thinking in a MIMO world.

SISO thinking in a MIMO world.

 

For complex systems like the earth's climate, small changes in critical parameters can cause major changes in the equilibrium state. For example, small increases in average temperature can cause large swaths of polar ice (formerly at equilibrium) to melt, exposing more of the ocean's surface to the sun's heat. Since water tends to absorb solar radiation rather than reflect it as ice does, the warming continues, causing more ice to melt, exposing more ocean, etc. Another example: Water vapor in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. Since warmer air can hold more water vapor, increases in average temperatures due to increases in CO2 concentrations also lead to greater levels of water vapor, which in turn increases the warming effect and so on. These changes may not stop until an equilibrium point is reached, but since many of the effects feed on themselves (like feedback in a public address system), its difficult to predict when the equilibrium point will be reached.

 

The climate isn't something we should have a cavalier attitude about.

For complex systems like the earth's climate, small changes in critical parameters can cause major changes in the equilibrium state.

Exactly my problem with Al Gore and company. Complex systems can receive changes in critical parameters from many sources, most of them beyond human control. That's why the rush to blame man for causing global warming is such a huge mistake. You can't minimize the problem if you don't know what factors are actually causing the problem. It's equivalent to the way they treated bubonic plague. Blame the people, quarintine them until the disease is gone or they're all dead. Come to find out that the "cure" only made things worse because they were looking at the wrong cause and spread of the disease.

 

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that some of the global warming alarmists believe that Venus was once populated until they filled the atmosphere with CO2.

I don't really care....Just posted some info that I found.

That was directed more at the article than you.

If that was the only piece of information, I would agree with you--warmer temps do not, in and of themselves, suggest human activity is the root cause.

 

However, we know that carbon dioxide gas allows short wavelength radiant energy from the sun to pass through, but absorbs some of the long wavelength radiant energy that would otherwise radiate from the earth into space. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped within the atmosphere due to this effect. This is the mechanism suspected to be behind the so-called greenhouse effect. We also know that since the industrial revolution, humans have been pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Humans have also been reducing one natural mechanism (trees) for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it back into oxygen and carbon solids.

 

So, we know that CO2 prevents radiant energy from being reflected back into space and we know that human activity contributes to an increase in the natural balance of CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

For me, that is all I need to know to conclude that human activity is playing a significant role in climate change.

 

 

References:

 

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9020249/carbon-dioxide

 

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

Again, as I pointed out in post #14 of this thread, Mount Pinatubo dumped more green house gases into the atmosphere in than man has in his entire time on earth. The climate is not as fragile as some would lead us to believe. I'm not saying we don't need to watch what we are doing, but there is no need for a knee jerk reaction that places the world economy into a spiral.

Again, as I pointed out in post #14 of this thread, Mount Pinatubo dumped more green house gases into the atmosphere in than man has in his entire time on earth. The climate is not as fragile as some would lead us to believe. I'm not saying we don't need to watch what we are doing, but there is no need for a knee jerk reaction that places the world economy into a spiral.

 

Swamprat,

 

Do you have a source for that statement? I have searched and searched and found nothing to back it up. In fact, I found a U.S. Geologic Survey report that states that:

 

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

The data I found seems to be at odds with your claim.

Article in Reuters this morning reports that Exxon Mobil has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims and has entered think tank discussions aimed at producing regulations for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Paid my natural gas bill yesterday. $843. Sure wish it would warm up some more so I would not have such a large gas bill each winter. :sssh:

Paid my natural gas bill yesterday. $843. Sure wish it would warm up some more so I would not have such a large gas bill each winter. :sssh:

 

They'll just adjust the gas prices accordingly...monitoring your natural gas use would be a more accurate measurement...:lol:

Swamprat,

 

Do you have a source for that statement? I have searched and searched and found nothing to back it up. In fact, I found a U.S. Geologic Survey report that states that:

 

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

The data I found seems to be at odds with your claim.

I haven't been able to find the link I had either, so please discount my claim.

They'll just adjust the gas prices accordingly...monitoring your natural gas use would be a more accurate measurement...:lol:

I do. Turn the thermostat down, wife turns it back up. I am going to lose that battle. :irked:

Article in Reuters this morning reports that Exxon Mobil has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims and has entered think tank discussions aimed at producing regulations for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

 

 

Wow! I can understand companies that run nuclear power plants coming down on the side of regulating greenhouse gases, but to see a petroleum industry giant do so is a true eyeopener.

 

 

Frances

I haven't been able to find the link I had either, so please discount my claim.

 

 

In all fairness, Swamprat, that would be based on the assumption that we ever gave it credence ...

 

 

Frances