If we don't do something, every human will eventually die.
Contrast the planning for terraforming Mars to the planning for terraforming earth. There is a major disjoint, both in who is planning and in what they think they can accomplish.
The CO2 level was rising between 1940 and 1970 but the average global temperature dropped during that period.
These are engineering problems which, if implemented, could be a GREAT boon for conservative processes. Nuclear Energy, combined with renewable fuel sources (Ethanol, if we could bioengineer something with a much more favorable conversion ratio, it would be a great start), plus carbon sequestration. I am of the opinion that the only practical hope for us is Technology.
What part of GIGO do these clowns continue to refuse to understand?
In order to "predict" anything, the penomena and all their nuances must be fully understood. I continue to believe that, even in 2106, that will not be the case.
I don't. At least not in the alarmist sense in which it was intended to be delivered.
Whatever happened to "adaptation"?
Kitten bait?
I am too except the last part. Global warming is more of a natural problem than the scare-mongers want us to think, and all the engineering in the world won't be able to correct all that much. If we really tried to do some massive engineering to fix the problem, it would have many unintended consequences. We just aren't smart enough to be tinkering with it.
One thing we keep forgetting, only carbon and hydrogen readily burn when mixed in the free air; where could we possibly store the CO2?
Carbon nanotube matrices?
I believe the causes of global warming have to do with the orbit of the Earth (it ain't circular) and how it tilts in relation to the orbit. Other influences are the relationship with the moon and other planets. The effects of greenhouse gasses are probably insignificant.
Kyoto was an attempt to destroy American businesses more than anything to do with global warming, much like ISO standards.
However, there are intuitive trends. Mankind is burning more hydrocarbons every day than ever before. That has to upset our planet ecosystem, but relatively how much? We know that earth has a tremendous capacity to absord and dampen mankind's insults.
The scientific data is disturbing and we should use to force political change away from burning oil, muslim oil, radical muslim knocking-our-buildings-down oil.......
Regardless of what we do, it's very likely that the next ice age will start within the next 2,000 years. In the mean time, it makes sense for mankind to continue to advance our technology. Right now, it makes sense to build a lot more nuclear reactors, and develop new energy sources. After all the oil, coal, and natural gas won't last forever.
Below are a couple of informative links. They summarize information collected by geologists and paleontologists. These kinds of scientists have the advantage of looking at hundreds of millions of years of physical history, while our alarmist climatologists are simply extrapolating from insufficient data.
Granted, the past isn't the future, but having a better grasp of what went on in the past can give great perspective about what's likely to occur in the future.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
The REAL truth is more like this:
We live in a hypercomplex environmental system with multiplied millions of interrelationships ranging from the obvious to the undiscovered. Our ability to model such a system simply does not exist. Despite the models that we have, there are vastly more interrelationships that may bear upon the issue that are not included in our models.
Taking climate in terms of a system of equations; we have precious few well-known equations and millions of variables. The system simply CANNOT be solved at this hour of human history, and it is so complex that our descendants will look back upon our infantile efforts in much the same way that we look back upon man's early attempts at flight. Our present models, even with the level of complexity that we have achieved, are so far from reality that one might find them laughable, if they weren't being used in an attempt to drive policies that would be detrimental to all of us.
"Global warming", taken in terms of man's early efforts at flight, is a group of hand-wringing true-believers shouting at the rest of us, "I jumped off the roof with an umbrella, fell and broke my leg. Therefore, it is patently IMPOSSIBLE that man will EVER gain the ability to fly and we need to outlaw future attempts or there'll be far worse than just broken legs. You'd better believe me or you will rue this day."
To compare the complex relationships between the manifold factors influencing climate with our present models is just a few orders of magnitude more absurd than comparing an F-18A Hornet with the aforementioned umbrella. How much more absurd -- how far beyond credible, then -- to take output from these models and construct a global crisis. And how unbelievably irresponsible and, frankly, stupid to insist upon sweeping public policy changes based on that output.
We know too little to make too much of it.
Look, it is very simple. If a glacier melts, plant trees in its place. Trees will suck up the CO2 and WHAM - back into the ice age we go.
One place already has. It's called North Korea, and not long ago, there was thread on FreeRepublic with links to pictures of what the place looks like today.
That's the way it would look for _us_, IF the greenies were able to get their way. Let's hope they never do.
- John
And if global warming is true, Bruce Springsteen will be responsible for destroying the world
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Of course, he couldn't have done it without Hanoi Jane.