Global warming

Seems the Bush administration is being called to task on national news now for causing scientific reports on global warming to be edited to downplay the very serious effects that are now hard to
deny.
Only a handful of scientists - some reputedly with agendas from their employers - hold out that global warming, as has been recorded in the past half century, is a natural event.
Let's not just lay it at the feet of Dubya, though. The deviation from normal warming profiles has been clear for the past thirty years or so.
I guess every administration has ducked this issue.
Even if uncontrovertibly true, I wonder if we Americans are ready to do whatever necessary to try to reverse the greenhouse effect?
I sadly suspect that we are not.
Maybe a dollar per gallon tax on fuel, to go the the Social Security shortfall or energy research, or a workable medical care plan that will allow industry to survive, would be a good start.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've read the scientists are split 50/50 on whether man has had a significant impact on GW, which has been going on for over 10k yrs in this GW cycle. My house is sitting where there was a few thousand feet of ice about 20k yrs ago.

All we've seen is an increase in the rate, which is what one would expect when the northern ground cover melts. The warming in Canada has been in the central north. Interestingly it's colder in Canada's north east than it was 1,000 yrs ago.

People with money around the world don't do much to reduce their energy use and pollution. What a sham for Arnold S. to sue the auto manufacturers for their negative impact while he drives several Hummers.
There is so much hot air over GW the earth is warming up faster. >:)
Some real facts to read: http://www.northroots.ca/stories16/pettipas.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I dont think it is that close..but there are still some who insist that warming is a normal phenomenon. I dont believe it any is, at least not anymore.
There is too much data to prove that we are at the focus of this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm not so convinced there is all that data to support either claim right now. Both sides have produced what they want you to see and data has long been the arch-enemy of the truth, when in the hands of scientists. I don't really know where the scientific community stacks up in terms of who believes what, but it's really hard to gauge from what is reported. The most vocal side always seems to have the largest number of proponents.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When I was in college we were taught that we were headed into another ICE AGE because greenhouse gasses where blocking out the sun. The 'scientist's in the know wanted to deposit carbon black on glaciers to speed up melting to cool the oceans. Like today, we were told if we didn't listen, in twenty years it would be too late. I graduated in 1951 and they were still teaching that in colleges well into the seventies.
You are correct President Clinton never even submitted the Kyoto Treaty, the was created during his tenure, to the Senate for ratification knowing it would not be approved. 'Global Temperature Change' is now the IN phrase, not 'Global Warming.' Seems the old term does not jive with what is actually happen in the world. While many areas are indeed warming others are cooling and the average global temperature has not risen since 1998.
You will not find it on the major media but the question still is not settle among real earth scientist as to the cause of the Global Temperature Change. Climatologist, archeologist and others still lean to the natural forces of nature, IE the sun and our relationship to it, variations in the tilt of the earth axis, volcanic activity and movement of tectonic plates. Global Temperature Change, fund grants, and politics are related more than many suspect.
mike

<snip>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip> The volcanic eruption is an interesting point. I have heard a case made that most large scale eruptions have a nearly net zero effect on global warming. The ash and soot contribute fairly heavily toward acutally global cooling -- at least for a short time.
I think I'm going to just wait and check the sea-level around 2100 - while generating as little greenhouse gases as possible in the meantime. How can I lose?
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The problem for the average taxpayer is Global Climate Change has now become political. WE WILL pay the price.
Today Hillary said she wants to take the profit from the American oil industry.. Who does she think will pay the higher gas prices needed to keep them from going out of business? At 18.5 cent per gallon federal tax the US Government already makes more per gallon of gas than do the oil companies. The states, on average, make nearly twice as much as the feds on a gallon of gas.
There is no question the average earth temperature has gone up over the past 100 years or even more, but the fact is nobody knows for sure the cause. The UN report just released said it is 'LIKELY' man is contributing to global warming, which means they know there are other naturally occurring contributing factors. The person reading the report to the UN even emphasized the word 'LIKELY.' Even the UN can not say for sure that man is actually the cause, nor do they conclude we can do anything to change it. Yet the politicos were all over TV pointing to that report. What gets me is no reporter asked the pertain questions
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You and I are thinking the same on this Mike. I'm forever curious for more info on the earth's climate when the Cyprus Swamp trees that now grow in the Carolinas grew on Baffin Island. It wasn't that long ago because I've read that some wood pieces aren't fully petrified and can still be burned. Obviously the climate changed very quickly else the wood would have rotted. About 20,000 years ago Vancouver, BC was under a few thousand feet of ice, much earlier it was warm enough here that a few tropical reefs were created nearby. Now the Vancouver basin is rising from both the release of that ice pressure and the rising of the western edge of the continental plate over the Pacific plate at the main fault line about 200 miles west in the Pacific ocean. The rising ocean probably won't be a threat here, in spite of media claims otherwise. Living in north western North America allows one to observe earth evolution in the raw.

IMO it's become a media and political event. The flat earth society has been replaced by the Static Earth Society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:
(snip)

Evolution in action. Adapt or die.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's what the dinosaurs used to chuckle about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The irony is, if you do a search you will discover that, the dinosaurs roamed the earth for 165 million years and died out during the last few million years. During the time the average earth temperature was four degrees higher than today and the oxygen level was down to around 18 percent. At the time the carbon dioxide level was much high than they are predicting it will be in 50 years. Paleontologists suggest the reason the dinosaurs died out over time, and the manual prospered, was because of the increase of the oxygen level, produced by all the giant vegetation, and the lowering of the carbon dioxide, the vegetation consumed over time. The mammals, with a diaphragm could breath better and grew bigger and stronger as a result, and the dinosaurs, without a diaphragm, died out over time.
mike
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The nuts are running the asylum, it seems. They point to carbon dioxide as a cause but carbon dioxide occurs naturally in nature. Trees depend on carbon dioxide to live WE exhale carbon dioxide to live. Will they propose cutting down trees or that we breath every other day, as part of the 'cure?' LOL
mike
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And we depend on the trees to make oxygen. But we do cut down acres of rain forest every day. I'm not buying either side yet, but is sure makes sense to study and find if there really is a problem. While carbon dioxide does occur in nature, we also add to it artificially. There must be some balance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

as
rain
Mikes argument is a lame one. He begs the question, as is typical. Recent ice coring at the South Pole (about two miles deep), shows that at no time in the last 650,000 years has CO2 levels approached the highs they are today.
Dashes the volcano gambit, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I am only aware of deep core drilling in the Artic not the Antarctic but if that is a fact, man was not around then. What caused it to go up, or down, from current levels 650,000 years ago? The fact remains carbon dioxide levels were much higher during the 165 MILLION years the dinosaurs roamed the earth and they went extent 65 MILLION years ago.
While volcanic eruptions do effect the atmosphere, two thirds of the worlds volcanic activity takes place under the oceans. Increased activity warms the oceans. The prediction of increases in the El Nino effect are based on underwater tectonic place activity under the Pacific near Hawaii. Reduced activity cools the ocean as well Search Tectonic Plates
mike
.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The balance needs to be in the RESEARCH on the many other reasons for global climate change. Currently the research is directed at proving it is the result of the activities of man. Is the fluxuation in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the cause of the temperature change or the RESULT of temperate change? That question has yet to be determined. There are scientist that study the sun who believe the change in the amount of carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring non polluting gas, is caused by activity on the sun. Until that research is funded as is man as the cause, the real cause can not be known. Unfortunately today anybody who questions man as the cause, is shouted down as a right wing fanatic.
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.