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.
I agree with [SIZE=5]lkb0714[/SIZE] about the cause of the global warming over the last 10,000 years or so. the two major sources of atmospheric CO2 are volcanoes and humans. We now create more then the mountains.
I live in southern New Hampshire and experiencing a season long drought and temperatures high enough to make me consider installing an air conditioner. I do not consider these part of a global warming situation but just the result of a variant in the behavior of the continental jet streams. One effect of the drought is all of our grasses looks like a California summer. it is light brown instead of deep green. My major worry is the woods are also drying out and we do not have the infrastructure to handle a major forest fire.
The major objection to the concept of global climate change is the sheer reluctance of the investors to consider their beach front condos are at risk. Instead of selling out they insist that these will always be worth more. If the do sell out the new owners will insist they be protected from the ocean. I think they are fools and do not own any ocean or river side property.
Although not related to climate change (maybe) the lower Mississippi valley flooding is an example of ignoring the obvious. I have heard that 80% of the home owners did not buy any Flood Insurance even though they knew their regular home insurance did not cover floods. Now what are they and their towns going to do? Try to get the Federal government to bail them out or more sensibly move somewhere else (maybe on higher ground) and start over?
I agree with [URL="https://www.city-data.com/forum/members/lkb0714-813578.html"][SIZE=5]lkb0714[/SIZE][/URL] about the cause of the global warming over the last 10,000 years or so. the two major sources of atmospheric CO2 are volcanoes and humans. We now create more then the mountains.
I live in southern New Hampshire and experiencing a season long drought and temperatures high enough to make me consider installing an air conditioner. I do not consider these part of a global warming situation but just the result of a variant in the behavior of the continental jet streams. One effect of the drought is all of our grasses looks like a California summer. it is light brown instead of deep green. My major worry is the woods are also drying out and we do not have the infrastructure to handle a major forest fire.
The major objection to the concept of global climate change is the sheer reluctance of the investors to consider their beach front condos are at risk. Instead of selling out they insist that these will always be worth more. If the do sell out the new owners will insist they be protected from the ocean. I think they are fools and do not own any ocean or river side property.
Although not related to climate change (maybe) the lower Mississippi valley flooding is an example of ignoring the obvious. I have heard that 80% of the home owners did not buy any Flood Insurance even though they knew their regular home insurance did not cover floods. Now what are they and their towns going to do? Try to get the Federal government to bail them out or more sensibly move somewhere else (maybe on higher ground) and start over?
See now THIS is what irks me to no end. I tend to vote along the lines of liberals, but I am NOT okay with the idea of big government bailing out people who refused to accept reality and risks and did't take known precautions based on the reality and risk.
As a former weatherman, here are a few thoughts....
I agree with National Geographic scientists. They have been taking core samples for decades and long before this current trend in temperature increase they noted that both polar ice caps fully melt every 5,000 years due to natural cyclical changes. In between those events one or the other ice cap melts a few times. Right now we are smack dab on target for ice caps to melt. They can only do so if the earth's temperature rises.
So the next question is, now that we know the earth's temperature rises and falls cyclically and we are in what should be a natural rise in the earth's temperature, what role is man really playing?
I think the data is clear that man is most likely contributing. But to what extent is the question. So it behooves us to be vigilant and try and contribute as little as necessary. I suppose.
As a former weatherman, here are a few thoughts....
I agree with National Geographic scientists. They have been taking core samples for decades and long before this current trend in temperature increase they noted that both polar ice caps fully melt every 5,000 years due to natural cyclical changes. In between those events one or the other ice cap melts a few times. Right now we are smack dab on target for ice caps to melt. They can only do so if the earth's temperature rises.
So the next question is, now that we know the earth's temperature rises and falls cyclically and we are in what should be a natural rise in the earth's temperature, what role is man really playing?
I think the data is clear that man is most likely contributing. But to what extent is the question. So it behooves us to be vigilant and try and contribute as little as necessary. I suppose.
Stop being rational. You are supposed to be alarmist and insist on a whole bunch of new laws that control every aspect of everyone's life. Electricity, gasoline use, or other carbon emissions should be dolled out in the discretion of politicians because they are so much smarter than the rest of us. We do not have enough laws impacting our personal lives and need more. Come on - get with the program.
Oh BTW, is it also probably rational to consider whether we can actually do anything that will have a significant impact as opposed to just regulating the snot out of everything to make some people feel better (or feel more in control) while really accomplishing nothing of any meaning whatsoever. So- do not consider that. Get with the program we have to do SOMETHING, even if that something accomplishes nothing, it is still better than doing nothing that accomplishes the same nothing.
There is no doubt that the planet goes through natural cycles. That is not at issue!!!!!!!!!
This is the issue: Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual. (NASA).
The reason it is unusual is because of the huge quantity of CO2 being thrown off into the atmosphere. That is the driving force.
As a former weatherman, here are a few thoughts....
I agree with National Geographic scientists. They have been taking core samples for decades and long before this current trend in temperature increase they noted that both polar ice caps fully melt every 5,000 years due to natural cyclical changes. In between those events one or the other ice cap melts a few times. Right now we are smack dab on target for ice caps to melt. They can only do so if the earth's temperature rises.
So the next question is, now that we know the earth's temperature rises and falls cyclically and we are in what should be a natural rise in the earth's temperature, what role is man really playing?
I think the data is clear that man is most likely contributing. But to what extent is the question. So it behooves us to be vigilant and try and contribute as little as necessary. I suppose.
They are called milankovitch cycles and they occur roughly every 100,000 years not 5K. Even the shortest of the contributing factors, precession, is on a 21K cycle.
We are not in the warming phase of milankovitch but in fact should be in a cooling phase.
One would expect a meteorologist to know this as it is part of every course on climate since the 40s.
There are *no* benefits to global warming, net of all of the natural disasters and human dislocation that are resulting from global warming.
No matter what you believe is the cause... disasters are the consequence. Get used to the repercussions. That's what the 21st century will be focused on mitigating.
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.
