sort by best latest
We also release millions of tons of methane into the air each year from landfills, according to a hub I just read by cam8510.
How did we redirect rainfall. If weather could be controlled, I promise you as a Louisiana resident, I can name a few hurricanes I have lived through that I would have liked to redirect--Katrina, Rita, Gustav and others.
Short explanation: Cities heat and dry the air above them, which drives water vapor high. Winds blow the water vapor toward cooler/wetter areas where rain still falls easily, like Louisiana, to add to what you are already getting.
I completely agree with you. It isn't about belief at all. You don't have to be a scientist to see the recent changes in weather patterns in the last few years
Crazymom3, you made the point that needed to be made. You cannot use 3 or 4 years of data to address the issue of climate change (which includes global warming). There will always be sporadic changes. Thus you have to look at the longer history.
That's true. The carbon dioxide level reached its historical peak in the 1950's and has shot straight up since. We've had the 20 hottest years in history since the 1970s, 10 of those during the last 12 years per NASA. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
watergeek, the point of the article is still relevant... " for most citizens, knowledge about science comes largely through mass media, not through scientific publications or direct involvement in science." This problem is now worse. You did not read
Reading NASA's website is about as direct an information source as a non-scientist can get, since they produce many of the readings from their own instruments worldwide. BTW I do most of my own research, rather than read popular news.
I am acquainted with a scientist who worked at NASA. and who says global warming is not significant and he has data to back up his claim.. Anyway, my point is that there is no consensus, but there is a great flow of grant money to prove otherwise.
It's true, there's no consensus. I really hope people take action without waiting for one, though. Can you imagine what would happen to our country if we waited for consensus on anything between government officials? (lol) Same with scientific folks.
I thought you were referring to the prevailing belief of consensus. But it is true that consensus will not be reached and that it has nothing, at this juncture, to do with scientific truth. I encourage all to read Professor Carter's excellent book.
BTW I run an environmental group with members who are scientists at the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL/NASA) in Pasadena, who push me even harder than I want to go to deal with climate change. NASA's site (& charts) speaks for itself. You saw the link?
Who funds their research then?
Yes, I saw the site, watergeek. It is funded by the IPCC., whose members are senior civil servants and other academics and which began, in part, by the UN. The climatologists are hand picked by the IPCC.
Although JPL's research is used by the IPCC for their own data analyses and reports, it's actually funded by NASA, along with some seed funding from the American Recovery & Investment Act: rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov/about/overview
So as I said its funded by tax $.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, America's pre-imenent physicist warned of the governments "extraordinary pressure to stifle dissent" on global warming: http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Counter-Consensus-Pa...
I almost totally agree with you. There are things that have been done & will be done, such as reducing emissions, trying to rebuild wetlands, etc. Everyone is more environmentally aware. We just need to allow time and not focus on short term resu
I agree too. The belief thing turns into a competition, a who's right or wrong thing, that takes up the energy we could be using to create more earth-healthy lifestyles.
As for Christianity, the Bible clearly states that we are to take care of the land so if one believed in the Bible, they would want to take care of the land.
Happily, many evangelical churches are coming to that same conclusion. They carefully disassociate themselves from "environmentalists" (of which I'm one), but as long as we're all working to care for the earth, there needn't be any differentiation.
Ground temperatures and air temperatures are very different. Global warming has aimed at industry. Based on what you say, shopping mall, parking lots and greater urbanization for a growing global population is the problem.
I am stunned at the "belief" system that has been created by those who have chosen blindness, and now a strong delusion has come upon them. Do you think it is impossible to kill a houseplant? Does a human have no effect on the outcome of a garden?
Of course human have an impact. Never denied that. Human intervention accounts for much of the land loss. Global warming as a solitary cause has not been proved to my satisfaction. It is an element of climate change. That view is reasonable.
The recent, drastic level of climate change is a combination of earth and human activity. Ice core and earth core analyses have helped us chart past cycles. This current one has gone way beyond, and much of it can be attributed to human activity.
Watergeek, I understand where you are coming from but I recently visited a place where 2 inches of rock represented 1 million times how long man has been around. That two inches was found near a mile deep in the GC.
The thought that the planet also belongs to those who lack technology (humans and non-humans both) appears to have lost in the debates revolving around CO2 levels, global temperature and talk of trees as carbon sticks holding back CO2.
Precisely, sustainable development is the answer to all ills of the planet. It means shifting the focus to development of people and look at the per capita consumption of natural resources across the world.
I disagree. I worked in water conservation for four years and know many leaders in utility companies who are serious about conserving resources to reduce climate change. I know city officials in and around Los Angeles who are taking action too.
How many of the bottled water companies have you stopped then? And how many of the utility companies have accepted rationing to their users? Has LA stopped all private vehicles within the city limits?
Silverspeeder, this is a democracy. You can't forbid people to drive. You can create alternatives. That's what LA has and continues to build: Public transport, bike paths, etc. Also, nearly all the water companies here ration in some way.
What alternatives? Stop flying, stop driving, stop flushing the John?
Where would your democratically elected government get their tax collection from if half the people stopped driving for instance?
You're not making sense. Alternatives mean choices, e.g. LA is continuing to expand the Metro, which is heavily used. They're turning the LA River into a real river with bike paths and building more within the city, which lets people bike to work.
Data from 50 to 100 years ago when compared to today's data is not really valid because of instrumentation, better calibration and more specific protocols to insure accuracy.
I'm not making sense? So how many vehicles have LA taken of the road then? And where do they build the bikes? In green factories I suppose. And are they building the cycle paths out of renewable sources like wood? Its not me who is not making sense.
Even if falsifications are rule than exceptions, any ordinary person can tell that the annual seasons are showing sign of disorder and local weather is now more predictable than say 2-3 decades ago. Of course, "who to blame" is the issue of debate.
Are you suggesting that all the research aimed at making us healthier so we can lie longer should end. Other that limiting the number of children per family, which would be impossible and immoral, I do not see any way of reducing the population.
There's something about unhealthy life circumstances that makes people (and animals) breed more. Research has shown that most people in developed countries voluntarily reduce their child-load to just two or three, knowing that they will survive.
Average number of children per woman depends upon the state of development of the society and people (reflected in the economic growth, gender equality and women empowerment). So development of poor nations is the key,if human population is a threat.
I am no expert. However, before the Pill, families in this country were larger than today. In undeveloped countries, health issues, not choice, probably count more for lower birth rate.Also people live longer, using resources and taking up space.
You know, this has been a really good conversation. Everyone has contributed their own thoughts and triggered a rethinking for others, myself included. Could it be that the earth is realigning &/or we are discovering new things about how it opera
I think you have summed it up very well. It has been a good discussion, more intelligent and less attitude than I have seen in a long time.
The well-being of the planet and the climate that affects all of us is not an issue of scientists only. It is every ones's issue.
Wait. I'm an environmentalist. I'm not a cultist, and I don't think you're a cancer that need to be eliminated. I don't know where you got that from.
You might not be, but they are out there. Ever see the UK commercials promoting the idea that climate deniers should die? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
I do not agree with all that is put forth by the global warming/climate change group and will debate that when needed.. Resorting to name calling is needless and denying that some changes are taking place is bad science and bad journalism.
I haven't seen those UK commercials, Ceegen, and wouldn't support them if I did. I agree with you/Larry that pointing fingers is a waste of time and energy, no matter who's doing it. The group I lead doesn't. We focus on constructive action.
Disturbing UK commercials:
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It gets crazier.
Those are absolutely disgusting Ceegen!! You are right. They were obviously created to antagonize people against climate change. But they do bring to mind the bombing the US is doing in the Middle East for oil. :(
Ceegan, you have a reasonable argument and let's stay within reason. There are always extreme elements around any global issue.Muslims are as valuable as the environmentalists if we know them beyond labels. Let's not debate CC or GW as labels either!
4 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
4 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide