I found a recent article on MSNBC about the rapid melting of icecaps.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14681922/

The world is definitely heading toward much warmer temperature. I also notice the winter temperature in canada has risen several degrees over last 20yrs. There is much less snow in Canada than previous decade. If I want to see lots of pure white snow, I would have to drive far upnorth 8hrs from Toronto.

The recent record temperatures, the devastating drought and a host of other phenomenon have many former naysayers changing their viewpoints. Things may get pretty tough, and the solution and resolution probably won't be realised until well into our children's lives. But it can be done, starting now, realising that all of us, from vegan environmental activist to the guy driving his SUV 100 meters to the convenience store are all part of the problem and solution.

If you think news of the melting icecaps sounds bad, and it is very bad, do some reading on the plight of the Amazon Rainforest. The situation has become very dire down there in the lungs of the world. It's kindling, ready to go up in flames.

I hate to think what will happen if there's another dry rainy season Rainforest.

Coincidentally, there was a documentary on one of the science channels that said we are on the brink of another ice age. Everyone has a theory.

That's because they think all of the fresh water from the glacial melt will trigger a shutdown in the Atlantic halocline which makes most of the eastern seaboard temperate and keeps jolly ol' England warm and moist as well. Not only will it vastly change local temperatures (including the tropical ones where the cool water no longer returns) it will change salinity and pH, all of which are not conducive to fish stocks and coral reef and such.

So, it might be that the current trend of global warming is indeed a buildup toward the hard freeze. But like you said, everyone has a theory. I daresay it's hard for anyone to ignore the evidence now. But I find it fascinating that our pollution might be our salvation if it keeps things artificially warm enough to prevent an ice age from starting. (note: that doesn't mean I think we SHOULD continue to pollute)

People, people people!

It is arrogant of us to think that we could have such a dramatic direct impact on the function of this planet short of global thermonuclear war. Even at that, life goes on. It melts, it freezes, it melts again; this is nothing new or unusual.

Change is inevitable. There's nothing we can do to stop it, and foolish of us to try. That's not to say we should disregard unnecessary risk and just be fools about the situation. Rather, we should look at the real cause and effect, and decide how we as a race intend to respond to the inevitability of change.

Ours is the first generation ever to actually have the ability to avoid, prevent, or mitigate natural catastrophe, and yes also to generate one ourselves. We are on a threshold of mankind's existence, if we dare to make use of the gift we've been given. The greatest asset any of us has is our ability to think, to reason, to solve the problem, and the next is hope. Now that we've advanced our technology sufficiently, we can choose to work with nature to adapt to the changes, or we can rage against the night.

Yes, it is a good thing that we can finally recognize that our world is a dynamic, evolving repository of life, with limited resources working to balance the equation constantly. If we aren't intelligent and reasonable about how we respond, we can only make matters worse for ourselves, thus letting the next species to have a whack at it millenia from now, probably some form of insect to be sure.

So, are you saying I shouldn't plant a tree and then hug it? <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

<rant on>

I find it ironic that the very people (politicians, media, talking heads, etc.) who enjoy telling the masses that we need to conserve more or else face doom 'n' gloom are themselves horrible stewards of the environment.

I turn off lights when they're not in use. I keep my electric usage down and heat as little as needed in winter. I try to keep my driving around town to a minimum and combine trips. I suspect that most of us do similar things, as we can't afford to do otherwise.

When was the last time you saw Al Gore driving a Honda Civic? Or John Kerry installing solar panels on the many, many homes and vacation retreats he (or Teresa) has? I wonder how the ELF terrorists got to their Hummer dealership arson targets? I doubt they walked.

I say do what you can reasonably do, but don't lose any sleep over it. Global warming (or cooling), no matter how it's caused, won't be going away soon. Those that constantly remind us about how dire the situation is should try taking a few steps themselves...

Just my .02

</rant off> <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Ben, you make a good point. Even if the current climate change is our fault (plenty of reason to think it is), we won't kill the planet. We might mess it up to the point where we mostly wipe ourselves out.

Remember, it isn't about saving the Earth, or the whales, or the ozone, or the rainforest. It's about saving the humans. Which means, save the ozone, the rainforest, the plankton, et. al. Save the whales if for no other reason they cool to listen to, and might actually be as smart (or smarter) that we are.

After all, who wants to take third place after the rats and cockroaches duke it out?

WATER is responsible for 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect (water vapor and clouds). The remaining 10% is caused by CO2 and other gasses. Humans are only responsible for about 3% of the CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere each day.

My point is that all this focus on CO2 is irrational. The effect of H2O totally swamps out any pitiful human contribution of CO2. What are we gonna do? Cover the oceans?

Notwithstanding the difficulty and dubious usefulness of trying to measure the global average air temperature accurately, a half a degree C change in over 100 years is not exactly what I would consider catastrophic. The local temperature here changes over the course of a single day by at least an order of magnitude more than that.

The climate of the earth is not static. Nor should it be. I'm convinced that had they been alive at the time, some people would be shouting for us to save the dinosaurs from extinction.

Source: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Junkscience indeed...

thseng - your post is so full of misinformation I'm not sure where to start.

Here's an explanation from an article published this past week in "The Independent" in the UK, regarding scientific study of ice cores from Antarctica:



The changes we're seeing are unprecedented in all the data we can access. We do need to take note, regardless of what the source of the increase is.

I didn't dispute that the amount of CO2 in the air has increased. Your article refers evidence that it has increased. Fine.

I just dispute the conclusion it suddenly jumps to without presenting any evidence:
"...the Earth systems can't cope with it"
and
"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes..."

That's the "junk science" part.

I think the problem is that scientists are getting their theories and conclusions polluted (forgive the pun) by politics, and then reported by less-than-unbiased media. I remember past scares involving "Global Cooling" and "The Coming Population Bomb", both of which were apparently concocted to 1) Increase university funding, and 2) Sell newspapers and magazines. So you will forgive us sceptics who don't take as gospel everything shouted to the hilltops by Academia these days. Personally, I can think of half a dozen good reasons to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but "Global Warming" ain't one of them. I think we may be in the first stages of a climate change, but I see no reasonably conclusive evidence it is man made.

Plant tree species that are native to your local environment, if willing and possible. The hugging part is kinda weird.

Eh, I agree that's just alarmist pap.

On the other hand, the actual measurements and rates of change of CO2 and Methane and other gasses do concern me, and are undisputed by any mainstream scientists I'm aware of.

The majority agree something major is going on, regardless of whether we understand the source. We should pay attention.

As others have noted, no matter what, we need to be looking at alternative energy sources and treating the environment better - if nothing else, it's in our own self-interest for medium- and long-term survival.

This is also pretty scary: methane being released 5x faster than expected

I was sorta joking there... I think that the alarmist method is just as bad as the "everything's alright" method handling the situation. The only problem is that it gets us nowhere when everyone has blinders on to the other side of the equation (Stop ALL Consumption! vs Consume it all as Fast as you Want!). Just like in politics, we've gone too far to either extreme while the intelligent middle is abandoned.

As with almost every other human endeavor, this discussion would benefit from people and politicians *thinking* beyond their lifetimes. It might not matter a huge deal to me that the oceans rise several feet in 100 years, but it sure could affect my kids or grandkids. In a debt driven disposable society, where mortgaging the future is the norm, I doubt that mentality is going to change soon. It's a shame because I think that no matter how much people disagree with the alarmist "pap", there is solid science and evidence that we are currently contributing to our own long term demise. If not the weather or atmosphere there's also plenty of evidence we are over-consuming and poisoning our own water supplies (many say the next resource wars will be over fresh water).

Seriously, if people believe everything is all good and that we can't possibly effect the earth, go ahead, live out your days in ignorant bliss. Plenty of people do (we often lament their survival preparedness). I don't know if the turning point is in 10 years or 100 or 1000. Alarmists will say it's right now and the head in the sand folks will say never. I fall somewhere inbetween, leaning on the side of caution tells me that *if* it's possible we are ruining our atmosphere and that there are alternatives available that won't kill growth or convenience, we should make every effort to implement them.

I knew you were sorta joking, I just wanted to poke fun at the "tree hugging" part. I was reading recently that the Cumberland River in KY and TN has soil run-off as its main pollutant. That's a new one for me. I sure know that's not the case with some other rivers around here.

Now speaking of water supply: The area I originally come from has the highest rate of cancer per capita than about any other area in TN. Why? The water supply: TN River polluted by several corporations and the treated water is known to have around 800 different contaminants. Politicians just bow and pad their pockets from special interests.

Your assessment of the how man treats the environment is pretty much the same as mine. There is too much extremism and not enough rational thinking in the middle. Just like everything else in life, I reckon.

Guess the Saudis betterd start towing those Antarctic bergs northward while they still can! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Remember when that was being seriously considered, back around the 70s or so? [color:"black"] [/color] [email]picard120[/email]

ah... I wasn't sure that came through as a joke. You'll find special interests all over pad politicians pockets, not just in TN. I live in Illinois where political corruption is something of a birthright. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

We have plenty of industry polluting the rivers here, but I hate to think about all the herbicides and pesticides that are in our drinking water. Not to mention the antibiotics and hormones used on animals. I think Iowa is way worse off than we are with their particular water system, but a lot of those chemicals don't break down and make it into our water.

We can no more stop global warming than we can stop continental drift. We had better spend our time and money on finding ways to cope with the changes.

Well I just got home from work and I'm kind of tired . So , I don't feel like typing a lot . All I can say is that if you don't believe that global warming is real or believe the earths climate isn't being effected by polution and deforestation then you should get your head out of your a$$. IMO , a lot could be done to stop the damage being done to the earth but greed , big corporations and politions like G.W.B. and his ilk will let things continue or make things worse .

"All I can say is that if you don't believe that global warming is real or believe the earths climate isn't being effected by polution and deforestation then you should get your head out of your a$$."

Yeah, you make a real compelling arguement there.

There have been at least seven previous ice ages according to most scientists. What stopped them?-global warming! I've never seen a fossilized Chevy Suburban being dug up next to a Wooly Mammoth.

So, read the scientific reports then. This one is fundamentally different based on the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the rate of change.

No other warming period has had this pattern.

You nay-sayers are in the fraction of a percent of a minority. All but a handful of mainstream scientists are in agreement on this one. Instead of mouthing off here, go read the actual reports, then find actual evidence to refute them. Then you'll have something new to present here.

"Instead of mouthing off here, go read the actual reports, then find actual evidence to refute them. Then you'll have something new to present here."

Unless I missed something, this is still a public board, meaning that anybody is free to voice an opinion as long as it is kept civil. So I am going to continue to "mouth off" here about various subjects. I hope that is alright with you.

Here is an alternate theory about global warming. Enjoy.

Norad45,

Hey, that was a facsinating article, thanks for posting it.

-Blast

Norad45 ---- I respect your right to " mouth off " and hope you continue to do so . Thats what forums are for . You are certainly entitled to your opinions . But , Just because Fox News does a report about the theorys of a couple of scientists from Denmark doesn't really mean anything IMO. . Fox news is notorious for being extremely biased in favor of right wing republicans and GWB . What about the majority of scientists in the world who believe Global warming is being caused or , at least , accelerated by greenhouse gasses produced by polution. I'm a very slow typer so I don't want to wright a long post on the subject . I just hope that you , or anyone , will keep an open mind and not rely on just one source for information .

As a scientist myself I have to chime in here. First, most new scientific discoveries are found by "a couple of scientists" ala Pasture, Fleming, Einstien, etc.. It usually takes the radical loner to break out of the scientific box.

Second, "majority of scientists blah blah blah". Quite frankly, once you get out of their narrow field of study most scientists don't know their head from there @$$ (me included). It's kind of like saying "a majority of plumbers agree on why the N.O. levees failed". A good article on this can be found here , though being from the Wall Street Journal I sense you may not trust it...

To me it boils down to we only have truely accurate data for a VERY short period of time compared to the history of the Earth. Making assumptions based on this data (especially in light of conflicting data!) leads to erroneous results. What did Prof. Dumbledore say to Harry? Something like, "I am a very smart and powerful man so when I make a mistake it's usually a very big one."

I'd write more, but I'm going camping instead. A nice (though not unusual) cool front has blow in here in Houston and I want to take advantage of it. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

-Blast

Now there's the perspective!!!

Change is inevitable. No one can argue that things are getting warmer right now, or that there are reasons why. Even if we shut down the whole process tomorrow, things will likely continue on their merry path, getting warmer or colder, or whatever it is that this planet, with all it's dynamics, will do. Industrial pollution isn't the sole source of all that is bad, nor all that is changing our planet. If we are really worried about greenhouse gases and global warming, we have the technology to remediate our environment to whatever we think it ought to be. The question is then, how much influence do we really think we have over what is happening, and would we be reacting to a situation that is as natural as the North of Africa suddenly drying up into a huge desert.

This planet, with all it's diversity and dynamics, is going to go on doing it's thing despite whatever we do to it. Change is inevitable. If you want to find a way for humanity to go on, better find a way to adapt to whatever comes. Yeah, it could be man-made, but it doesn't necessarily have to be, and if it isn't what implications does our response have?

So it is getting warmer, so what? If it is meant to be, then that's that. I'll say it again, it is pure arrogance for man to think he has this much impact on this planet. If the Amazon turns into another Sahara, life will still go on. If North America freezes up, life still goes on. What happens if we go to all the trouble of cutting our emissions down, and the planet continues to heat up (or cool down) anyways, or the big rock comes down, or the caldera goes critical, or someone pushes the big red button?

If our past tells us anything, it says that we will deal with it, and get on with doing what we do best.

Thanks for the WSJ article Blast. That will come in handy next month when I'll be subject to corporate "Sustainability" indoct..errr, training.

"...there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition." That about says it all.

"But , Just because Fox News does a report about the theorys of a couple of scientists from Denmark doesn't really mean anything IMO. . "

And yet you accept without question an MSNBC report about the theories of a "couple of scientists" from England? (See the first post in the thread.) Do you not see the inconsistency here?

I don't know if the alleged "Global Warming" is caused by automobiles, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or excessive monkey flatulance. But I am not going to just blindly accept that it is man-made without a lot of hard evidence carefully collected from seperate and (hopefully) unbiased sources

Again, there are other perfectly valid reasons to reduce human pollution that don't involve media driven scare tactics. Let's educate people about them.

This line gave me a chuckle: "...Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else." <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As for the nay-sayers being a fraction of a percentage I would direct you to this site where over 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying human induced global warming is so much garbage web page