Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why interfer with nature at all when this is a result of sunspots? You understand we are again forming glaciers in the upper Rocky Mountians through a cycle of heavy snows where the snowpack is not melting and is being added to every year, right?
Would you like to add the links of peer reviewed studies that link sunspots to climate change?
"On the heels of another halting round of talks on climate change, UN scientists this week will review quick-fix options for beating back the threat of global warming that rely on technology rather than political wrangling. Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meeting for three days from Monday in the Peruvian capital Lima, will ponder "geo-engineering" solutions designed to cool the planet, or at least brake the startling rise in Earth's temperature.
Seeding the ocean with iron, scattering heat-reflecting particles in the stratosphere, building towers to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere, and erecting a giant sunshade in space are all on the examining table."
Those measures are indeed going to cause more problems than they can solve. Some would probably have unforeseen consequences, as usual with human intervention.
Would be way easier to simply change our life style...
They aren't discussing lowering emissions. Geo engineering is about trying to manipulate mother nature and would have to be done on a large scale, much larger than anything we might be doing now that *might* be causing the global temperatures to rise.
Enacting caps doesn't work, but its still geo engineering. So was Reagans caps on CFC's in the 80's, and lots of other things we do.
I have no problem with geo engineering if thats what you want to call it, if its done smartly and is paid for by the entire world.
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
.
Last edited by thecoalman; 06-19-2011 at 10:29 AM..
Not all of that, no. CO2 towers might be good though.
Incandescent lightbulbs are gone. The future isn't about finding some new imaginary energy source, its about making the most of what you have.
If they want to fund a giant sunshade, thats their business.
They are ideas, and if they won't work, or if they cost to much, they won't be done.
You said they are trying to destroy the planet, hardly, we may destroy ourselves, but we aren't going to destroy the planet.
Their business? They want to fund it with OUR money which makes it our business. If they cost too much they won't be done? LOL. Where have you been? I'ts really quite simple. Greenland was green once and will be again. When who knows. Did all those SUV's the Vikings were driving cause it? No. What's next for these kooks? Start culling the population of humans because we exhale co2? I'd bet yes. In fact co2 makes up such an insignificant % of greenhouse gasses we could implement every looney tune "idea" and it will have no effect.
Their business? They want to fund it with OUR money which makes it our business. If they cost too much they won't be done? LOL. Where have you been? I'ts really quite simple. Greenland was green once and will be again. When who knows. Did all those SUV's the Vikings were driving cause it? No. What's next for these kooks? Start culling the population of humans because we exhale co2? I'd bet yes. In fact co2 makes up such an insignificant % of greenhouse gasses we could implement every looney tune "idea" and it will have no effect.
Who said they are going to fund it with our money?
Show me where the United States is going to fit the whole bill.
Who said they are going to fund it with our money?
Show me where the United States is going to fit the whole bill.
It's just kicking into overdrive. Also where do think they'll spend all that carbon tax money the EPA is going to steal? Certainly not on paying down the debt.
"In fact, critics note, overall climate funding is approximately as large as the entire federal government's budget was in 1932 -- $3.994 billion. (Additional money for climate science is apportioned to a number of federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.)"[LEFT]
Read more: Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research - FoxNews.com
[/LEFT]
It's just kicking into overdrive. Also where do think they'll spend all that carbon tax money the EPA is going to steal? Certainly not on paying down the debt.
"In fact, critics note, overall climate funding is approximately as large as the entire federal government's budget was in 1932 -- $3.994 billion. (Additional money for climate science is apportioned to a number of federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.)"[LEFT]
Read more: Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research - FoxNews.com
[/LEFT]
Increased funding for climate change research isn't funding the UN's programs now is it?
So to get the story straight.
1. You said that the UN is trying to destroy the planet
2. We showed everyone and you that they aren't trying to destroy anything, they are batting around scientific theory that could help things, but that isn't destroying the planet now is it.
3. Now you're saying that we are going to have to pay for it
4. When asked where it says we are going to have to pay for it, you show us climate change research funding that has nothing to do with the UN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
