Global warming

Perfect examples of why little is being done. Evidence that was pretty conclusive has been around for almost 50 years. Yet the closeminded and those easily swayed by corporate interests are far too many. Their logic & reasoning is so warped that it is impossible to even attempt to have a discussion. A study was just released by a very reputable group of scientists on global warming which states that it is happening, humans are the cause and climate change has already happened.

But to those in denial, it's all weather variation and anomalies, except that the "variations" and "anomalies" are becoming the norm. Go figure.

And for those too dense to understand the mechanics behind water levels & currents, an extra 5 degrees Celcius yields catastrophic consequences. It's not your little neighborhood that's of concern.

 

Here you go. A report by another UN agency saying that animals are the problem not humans.

""the environment editor of U.K.'s Independent Online posted a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), asserting that “the world's top destroyer of the environment is not the car, or the plane, or even George Bush: It is the cow.”

According to the report, the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle have been identified as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they have been blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the FAO, entitled “Livestock's Long Shadow,” also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

And their wind and manure emit more than one-third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide. Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain. ""

 

Sounds bogus report to me roberk, i particularly like the "alien species" bit.

Nevermind the fact, all these animals are raised expressly, directly, for human consumption.
Cant really blame livestock, can you?


Could vegetarianism save the planet?

Maybe, maybe it could.
Except of course, people would be so starved of protein and good-tasting food, they'd likely resort to canabilism.


Could canabilism save the world?
We report, you decide.

Btw, nebuchadnezzar and various other bloodthirsty ancient rulers were reported to have "converted" to vegetarianism, by one means or another.
Ah, food for thought.

 

I prefer global warming over global cooling.


http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
The Little Ice Age in Europe

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea.

the year 1816 - "the year without a summer."

One of the worst famines in the seventeenth century occurred in France due to the failed harvest of 1693. Millions of people in France and surrounding countries were killed.

The cooler climate during the LIA had a huge impact on the health of Europeans. As mentioned earlier, dearth and famine killed millions and poor nutrition decreased the stature of the Vikings in Greenland and Iceland.
In addition to increasing grain prices and lower wine production, there were many examples of economic impact by the dramatic cooling of the climate. Due to famine, storms, and growth of glaciers ,many farmsteads were destroyed, which resulted in less tax revenues collected due to decreased value of the properties (Lamb, 1995.)


http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2004/jan_12_04.htm
It is a reminder that despite all the hoopla on global warming, the earth's icy ages are much more terrible for mankind than the warm periods. Human death rates are far higher in the cold periods, with more and fiercer storms driven by a bigger temperature differential between the Arctic and the equator. The world only escaped from the last Little Ice Age about 1850, after roughly 550 years of chilling weather, floods, and blizzards. Sea ice actually brought seal-hunting Eskimos in kayaks as far south as the British Isles.

Glaciers, ice cores, and tree rings tell us the global climate was also cold during the Dark Ages from about 600 to 900 AD, and during a pre-Roman cooling before the year 200 BC.

The last global warming period before this one occurred between 900 and 1300 AD, when it was somewhat warmer than today, according to the tree rings and ice cores. People were so grateful for the warmth they called it The Little Climate Optimum, and built tall Gothic cathedrals to celebrate their deliverance from cold and damp.

Dr. Bond has found nine global warmings and nine global coolings in the last 12,000 years.

 

I thought "the year without a summer" was caused by volcanic activity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0


The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.


Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.


Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

 

Here's an example of the "evidence" of man-made, CO2, greenhouse gas, induced global warming.

The chicken or the egg mystery comes to mind, (perhaps warming temperatures caused increased CO2, not vice-versa). It's funny how some people's first inclination is to blame man ... almost always liberals at that. If Al Gore grows his beard back, I'll vote for him.

On second thought... I'D BET THE FARM, that rising temperatures are more likely to cause increased CO2 levels, than increased CO2 causing warmer temperatures. Our temperatures are nearly entirely dependant on one thing ...... THE SUN.

 

There have been numerous warming and cooling periods over the last 10,000 years alone. There was a period of time when the earth was a lot warmer 6000 years ago. Warm enough to make a lot of the Saharan desert green. What's wrong with that?

I'm 100% pro clean air. I'm totally against toxic chemicals for health reasons. Why doesn't Al Gore say anything about that?

Did Global Warming invent Al Gore?

When the next cooling period happens, no amount of human activity will reverse it. Adapt or die.

 

To this I must point out that some scientists deny that the Earth is round. They are publicly willing to defend their positions with "evidence". Go ahead and google the "Flat Earth Society" to see for yourself. My point is, you can find some person with "credentials" to defend anything whether it be in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.

 

Always wondered about that.
Looking at much of the pleistocene era, there was a full on ice age, near as i can tell.

Consequently, many legitmately arid zones now, were supposedly lush steppes, fertile grasslands and even temperate forests and open woodlands-im not sure about the distrobution of proper "tropical rainforest" regions though.

That being said, theres too many people to cram into ever decreasing fertile lands, in the event of even mild reccurences of glaciation; and it appears, that can happen very quickly.