Record High Temps in U.S. - Pending Doom

[Saldrin]

It is a political football only because of the deniers.

you mean only because of the AGW hoaxers.

Nonsense. It's not as though the scientists are pulling their opinions out of thin air. They observe. They record the data. They look for patterns. They use logical reasoning to try to figure out what the data mean. The data consistently point to a certain conclusion, and so the vast majority of climatologists agree about it.

It's not a vast majority, AGW hoaxers simply say that to try to end debate, the science is not settled and the debate is not going to end, and science isn't up for a vote.

the fact of the matter is there are a great number of scientists that do not agree with the theory of AGW.

This may be a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situation. I suspect that the reason a majority of scientists are "leftist" is because the Right has been very unfriendly to science, not because the scientists have some sort of agenda.

No it is because they want to protect their government sponsored cash cow. period.

You have Right Wingers insisting that school teachers should teach religion in the classroom and call it science.

you left wingers claim science can and should replace God. there are plenty of scientists out there who have no problem with God.

You have Right Wingers cutting funds for education and for scientific research. You had the Bush Jr. Administration that told scientists to rewrite their findings on climate research in order to support the Administration's agenda. Of course scientists don't like being treated that way, and will tend to support those who do value science.

you can prove that right? Of course its George Bush's Fault. Ignoring the fact that The Scientific community where fudging their facts to play up AGW remember that pesky climate gate in which they got caught?

You use the word "probably" as though it means scientists are really quite unsure of their conclusions, and so they can be easily dismissed. I say "probably" actually means "probably," as the data strongly suggest the conclusions that the earth is actually getting warmer, and that human activity contributes to the warming trend. I'd rather base my actions on what is "probably" true, based on the evidence, rather than on what is "probably not" true, or "less likely."

Probably means the AGW Hoaxers fudge their date so what they are peddling as true, is a false hood.

Anthropogenic global warming has serious enough consequences that it seems wisest to act now to reverse the trend as much as possible, and to make preparations for the changes that will come despite our best efforts. Even without global warming, who wants polluted air?

AGW is a hoax.

[annewandering]

Us left wingers are out there to replace God with science? Not me. I think God uses science but isnt replaceable by science.

What is with all the insults today? Is it a full moon or something? Did you all just get up on the wrong side of the bed?

[HEthePrimate]

Us left wingers are out there to replace God with science? Not me. I think God uses science but isnt replaceable by science.

What is with all the insults today? Is it a full moon or something? Did you all just get up on the wrong side of the bed?

My father's a scientist. And a temple worker.

[Saldrin]

There is a lot of thought that we might be able to water ski in the Artic Ocean soon. Within 10 years even. That would be an interesting feat but probably still to cold there to enjoy!

see thats one of the problems with the enviroMENTAL lobby they say Ten years and we are all doomed, but the problem is they said that ten years ago, and the same thing ten years before that. they are like that guy who said the world was going to end in May and when he was wrong he moved it to October.

[Saldrin]

Us left wingers are out there to replace God with science? Not me. I think God uses science but isnt replaceable by science.

What is with all the insults today? Is it a full moon or something? Did you all just get up on the wrong side of the bed?

you personally may not, but i stand by my statement. and its not an insult if you choose to take it that way I am not responsible. Edited March 16, 2012 by Saldrin

[annewandering]

The photos of the north pole melting above Canada are actually pretty dramatic. Maybe it does happen every few hundred years but its hard to believe.

[annewandering]

Future of Arctic Climate and Global Impacts

This has a lot of interesting information. Of course it is based on fairly recent data so make up your own mind on what is shown.

[RipplecutBuddha]

There's no real argument over climate change happeing. Where the argument is taking place is what the root cause of the warming is.

How long have mankind been creating greenhouse gasses? Technically from the beginning. You see, it's greenhouse gasses that help keep the earth warm enough for life to exist at all. All life creates greenhouse gasses in various stages of existence and death. It's a natural....and deliberate....part of the earth that God created for us.

Now, ask yourself a few questions

-How much greenhouse 'pollution' has mankind generated, say, since the industrial revolution?

-Were you aware that volcanoes also produce greenhouse gasses during eruptions?

-Were you also aware that volcanoes have been erupting for eons?

-So how would you compare mankind's generation of greenhouse gasses to all the volcanoes in the history of planet earth?

For example, let's look at what the US Geological Survey has to say about Mt Pinatubo going off in 1991, linked here

Here's the abstract of the event;

The 1991 eruption of Pinatubo produced about 5 cubic kilometers of dacitic magma and may be the second largest volcanic eruption of the century. Eruption columns reached 40 kilometers in altitude and emplaced a giant umbrella cloud in the middle to lower stratosphere that injected about 17 megatons of SO2, slightly more than twice the amount yielded by the 1982 eruption of El Chichón, Mexico. The SO2 formed sulfate aerosols that produced the largest perturbation to the stratospheric aerosol layer since the eruption of Krakatau in 1883. The aerosol cloud spread rapidly around the Earth in about 3 weeks and attained global coverage by about 1 year after the eruption. Peak local midvisible optical depths of up to 0.4 were measured in late 1992, and globally averaged values were about 0.1 to 0.15 for 2 years. The large aerosol cloud caused dramatic decreases in the amount of net radiation reaching the Earth's surface, producing a climate forcing that was two times stronger than the aerosols of El Chichón. Effects on climate were an observed surface cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of up to 0.5 to 0.6°C, equivalent to a hemispheric-wide reduction in net radiation of 4 watts per square meter and a cooling of perhaps as large as -0.4°C over large parts of the Earth in 1992-93. Climate models appear to have predicted the cooling with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The Pinatubo climate forcing was stronger than the opposite, warming effects of either the El Niño event or anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the period 1991-93. As a result of the presence of the aerosol particles, midlatitude ozone concentrations reached their lowest levels on record during 1992-93, the Southern Hemisphere "ozone hole" increased in 1992 to an unprecedented size, and ozone depletion rates were observed to be faster than ever before recorded. The atmospheric impact of the Pinatubo eruption has been profound, and it has sparked a lively interest in the role that volcanic aerosols play in climate change. This event has shown that a powerful eruption providing a 15 to 20 megaton release of SO2 into the stratosphere can produce sufficient aerosols to offset the present global warming trends and severely impact the ozone budget.

If Mt Pinatubo can go off releasing, in just this one isolated eruption, 20 megatons of sulpher dioxide....and it ends up cooling the earth, how can global warming possibly be a result of mankind's activities? Volcanoes have (as I mentioned above) been going off all the time...yet ice ages end anyway.

Here's the big question...If millenia of volcanoes cannot significantly alter the course of the climate on earth consistently....how can less than two hundred years of human industrialization hope to do the same?

Never mind the fact that co2 is not a pollutant, but an essential gas for plant life worldwide, nor the fact that all the methane that cows generate is a grain of rice compared to the methane that insects generate, yet we aren't discussing how to eradicate all insect life...just moaning about bovine methane generation. I don't even see a rational point in discussing cows at all if it's a purely scientifically driven issue. Heck, the source of our steaks doesn't even rank in the top seven natural methane sources according to the EPA, linked here which are, in order,

Wetlands, Termites, Oceans-rivers-estuaries, Hydrates, Geologic, Wildfires, Wild Animals

This is just proof to me that the whole man-made climate change argument holds no water when compared against other natural activities going on in this great world.

My point is that God is in control, not us. We are in control of ourselves, but God has the earth well in hand. While I do believe we have the ability to affect the earth, I don't believe we have the ability to destroy it. To grant us that would put the entire plan of salvation at risk, and that's far too important a process to put at jeapordy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be responsible for how we treat the earth. What I am saying is that we were given the earth and its resources deliberatly, and we should feel no shame in using them. I'm all for any energy source that's easier to obtain, simpler to process and utilize, and is overall more versatile than oil and coal. The problem is, from a purely scientific standpoint, that desired alternate energy source simply has not been identified yet.

Edited March 17, 2012 by RipplecutBuddha

[HEthePrimate]

Never mind the fact that co2 is not a pollutant, but an essential gas for plant life worldwide

Water is essential to plant and human life, too, but too much water = flooding = death and destruction.

My point is that God is in control, not us. We are in control of ourselves, but God has the earth well in hand. While I do believe we have the ability to affect the earth, I don't believe we have the ability to destroy it. To grant us that would put the entire plan of salvation at risk, and that's far too important a process to put at jeapordy.

Giving humans free agency puts the plan of salvation at risk. But the risk was deemed acceptable given the potential rewards.

One could argue that God is not actually in control of the earth at this time, that he has "handed the keys" over to his children for the time being in order to let them demonstrate that they are responsible enough to be in charge long-term. How we treat the earth now affects whether or not God will entrust us with worlds in the future.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be responsible for how we treat the earth. What I am saying is that we were given the earth and its resources deliberatly, and we should feel no shame in using them. I'm all for any energy source that's easier to obtain, simpler to process and utilize, and is overall more versatile than oil and coal. The problem is, from a purely scientific standpoint, that desired alternate energy source simply has not been identified yet.

Of course we shouldn't be ashamed of using the earth's resources, as long as we do it responsibly. There are a number of alternative energy sources already being used, and more under development. Let's keep developing them because petroleum and coal are finite resources.

Nobody is arguing that natural processes don't contribute to greenhouse gases. What they are arguing is that human activities do, too, and have upset the balance and are helping to push the warming trend.

"Professional skeptic" Michael Schermer used to be, well, skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. However, as he studied the question more, and as scientists gathered more data, he changed his mind and now says that denying AGW is no longer tenable in light of the evidence. See this, in Scientific American. (It's not an analysis of the data, just an article announcing his change of position, but it does reference books he read that helped change his mind.)

Anyway, I'm not proposing that we panic. There may even be positive changes with global warming (such as my home state potentially becoming a tropical paradise and vacation spot ). However, a number of changes (ex: melting of the polar ice caps, flooding, crop failures, and desertification) would be negative, potentially catastrophic for different regions and different species, and it may have strong effects on global trade and economy, so we would do well to prepare, and to mitigate. And again, even if there was no global warming at all, poisoning the air, water, and land it just not healthy (obviously!), so IMHO we need to stop these nuts who would remove all environmental regulations, or make them impossible to enforce.

Edited March 17, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[HEthePrimate]

Never mind the fact that co2 is not a pollutant, but an essential gas for plant life worldwide

Water is essential to plant and human life, too, but too much water = flooding = death and destruction.

My point is that God is in control, not us. We are in control of ourselves, but God has the earth well in hand. While I do believe we have the ability to affect the earth, I don't believe we have the ability to destroy it. To grant us that would put the entire plan of salvation at risk, and that's far too important a process to put at jeapordy.

Giving humans free agency puts the plan of salvation at risk. But the risk was deemed acceptable given the potential rewards.

One could argue that God is not actually in control of the earth at this time, that he has "handed the keys" over to his children for the time being in order to let them demonstrate that they are responsible enough to be in charge long-term. How we treat the earth now affects whether or not God will entrust us with worlds in the future.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be responsible for how we treat the earth. What I am saying is that we were given the earth and its resources deliberatly, and we should feel no shame in using them. I'm all for any energy source that's easier to obtain, simpler to process and utilize, and is overall more versatile than oil and coal. The problem is, from a purely scientific standpoint, that desired alternate energy source simply has not been identified yet.

Of course we shouldn't be ashamed of using the earth's resources, as long as we do it responsibly. There are a number of alternative energy sources already being used, and more under development. Let's keep developing them because petroleum and coal are finite resources.

Nobody is arguing that natural processes don't contribute to greenhouse gases. What they are arguing is that human activities do, too, and have upset the balance and are helping to push the warming trend.

"Professional skeptic" Michael Schermer used to be, well, skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. However, as he studied the question more, and as scientists gathered more data, he changed his mind and now says that denying AGW is no longer tenable in light of the evidence. See this, in Scientific American. (It's not an analysis of the data, just an article announcing his change of position, but it does reference books he read that helped change his mind.)

[annewandering]

Living in a desert gives me the opinion that the fewer the better. Animals and plants have come and gone in the history of the earth. The earth is in constant change. One of the biggest problems I see is that we are trying to prevent natural change. We want to bring back mammoths but do we allow evolution of plants and animals in nature? No. We panic the minute that some insect is going extinct, although to be honest I am not sure how anyone can discover something like an insect is disappearing unless its mosquitoes. If a plant or animal shows up in a new place we start screaming invasion. Well yes it is. Same as it has been for millions of years.

To a degree we have to keep things dangerous to us at a minimum level but otherwise why dont we let nature solve its own problems? It might surprise us what results.

If we continue to interfere with nature arent we messing up the environment by our misguided efforts?

[estradling75]

I've never had a problem with the idea that Man can change or otherwise effect or impact his environment... My problem is with the "then and now whats."

You want me to believe that mankind is affecting climate change? Ok... I do.. Now what? You want mankind to stop all climate changing activities? Ok lets say we can wave some magic fairy wand to remove every human trace... then what?... Oh look at that... every scientist that even glances at the historical data is going to have to answer.. The climate is still going to change. The ice caps are still going to melt until we switch and start heading into the ice age and then they are going to grow more then we would really like. Because that is what the earth has always done.

Waving that magic wand at best bought us some time... And guess what we don't have a magic wand. You are talking a lot of resources and alot of time to try to zero us out.. for that little gain. That strikes me as monumentally foolish, when we should be saying... Yes things are going to change how do we prepare so we can ride through the changes?

Edited March 17, 2012 by estradling75

[Hala401]

Well, I don't dispute anything that is being said, but I do choose to confront it differently. I trust God, and Heavenly Father can handle my anxiety. He can still my fears. What ever is happening to the climate, I can not change it alone, but I can be doing what Heavenly Father wants me to by loving those who need it, caring for the ill, helping the frightened, and anything else that Heavenly Father wants me to do to bring comfort to others.

We live in a world that is constantly changing. The whole Salt Lake, Eastern Oregon, Southern Idaho basin was an inland sea once. People could once walk from France to England, and scientists say that people once walked from Alaska to Northern Russia. The Area around Babylonia once had beautiful gardens, there were forests in Israel, and rivers and canals in Desert Egypt.

It will all work out.

Hala

[shdwlkr]

Well lets look at a few things

First do we know for a fact that the earth has never done this before? The answer is no as we only know what the weather has been for what the last hundred or two hundred years.

Second as we move closer to the end we all know things are going to get strange.

Third have any of you noticed that the magnetic poles of the earth are shifting and yes this has happened before.

What influence does this have on our lives and the planet?

Fourth I wonder just how much water is being wasted each year for swimming pools, toilets, watering yards, washing vehicles, fountains and such and if we stopped this would we be better off or worse off?

Fifth what is the correct use of our natural resources in any nation on this planet?

Sixth and last for now have we been good stewards of nature and are we good stewards of nature in all aspects of our lives?

Edited March 20, 2012 by shdwlkr

[annewandering]

Water is still water no matter what it has been used for. If I water my lawn, which I dont do by the way, the water goes into the aquafur. If I dont use it, where does it go? hmm into the aquafur? Since we get our water from city wells it doesnt seem that it matters much so long as we have enough available for daily use and we dont put such nasty chemicals in it that the layers of dirt, gravel, etc cant clean it out before it hits the ground water again.

As far as water goes, the biggest problem is large cities, like LA, who steal the water from other areas so it doesnt go back into the right ground water. That deprived area then dries up since it cant sustain its natural cycles.

If we spread people out it would ease that problem but people are pretty stubborn and seem to want to be with as many people as possible.

[Dravin]

Water is still water no matter what it has been used for. If I water my lawn, which I dont do by the way, the water goes into the aquafur. If I dont use it, where does it go? hmm into the aquafur?

It isn't necessarily the case that the water is recharging your aquifer any time soon. It can evaporate and end up coming down elsewhere or enter a river and be carried elsewhere. Consider the case of the Ogallala Aquifer: Ogallala Aquifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water doesn't just disappear of course. If it enters a river or evaporates and chances are it'll enter the ocean (that which doesn't end up recharging some aquifer or other). Eventually it will evaporate from the ocean and come down as precipitation and have another chance to recharge aquifers or reservoirs. When people talk about wasting water they aren't talking about the water disappearing they are talking about it being removed from freshwater reserves for the immediate future.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Dravin

[shdwlkr]

If you really want to look at water what is here now is what was here when Jesus walked this earth there has been nothing added to the water available but the water that is fit to drink has gone down a lot because of the misuse of our natural resources and it will continue until it will be interesting to see if there is any good clean water to drink at any price any where.

If you want to look China is running out of water even polluted water for their people to drink. Here in the states we are running out of water also and we are seeing a lot of the western part of the nation and even some south eastern states that are running short on water so one day it could be very interesting what water you have and just how you plan to use your share.

[Guest]

If you really want to look at water what is here now is what was here when Jesus walked this earth there has been nothing added to the water available but the water that is fit to drink has gone down a lot because of the misuse of our natural resources and it will continue until it will be interesting to see if there is any good clean water to drink at any price any where.

If you want to look China is running out of water even polluted water for their people to drink. Here in the states we are running out of water also and we are seeing a lot of the western part of the nation and even some south eastern states that are running short on water so one day it could be very interesting what water you have and just how you plan to use your share.

When I was a teen-ager (I'm old now, ehem) we studied the water system in Hong Kong. This was of great interest for us Engineering students because Hong Kong is one of those places where there is very little fresh water resources that can supply the population density in that one island. They have to import about 75% of their drinking water from mainland China.

In the mid-60's, water was strictly rationed in Hong Kong since it cost Hong Kong millions of US dollars to import water. You got water running in your house from the city pipes for only about 3-4 days of a given week. The government started a program to install a separate pipe for flushing toilets using sea water which temporarily lifted the rationing but it was not quite a total success. They still experienced rationing periodically until the 80's.

But then, they started some really interesting technology there. They built reservoirs to capture fresh water heading towards the ocean and built chemical processing plants to reclaim that water. They installed some desalination plants, grey water recycling plants, rainwater harvesting plants, etc. So that, there has not been any rationing at all in Hong Kong throughout the 90's and 00's.

Since Hong Kong went back under Chinese rule, China now owns all these water technology. This makes the Chinese government very cognizant of their water supply and the ways by which they can conserve water and at the same time increasing their supply. And with a socialist government, change can be implemented faster and more aggressively.

That's the great thing about humans. They have a great capacity to adapt to change. You wonder with their small size and weak musculature, you would think they'd be wiped out by lions, elephants, burmese pythons, gorrilas, bears, etc., before they got too far outside the Garden of Eden...

[Saldrin]

change can be implemented faster and more aggressively.

With brutal efficiency disregarding the God given right to life agency and freedom, all for a hoax too.

well Algore thinks so anyhow.

[slamjet]

What if earths cycle put us in an ice-age? What would we be harping about, we're not producing enough co2 to counter the cold?

Just thinking out loud.