Answer to 1: 'Global' temperatures do seem to have risen in the past 100 years, but for many reasons this is hard to measure. More obvious are regional increses and decreases in mean annual temperatures, e.g. in Siberia temperature has increased about 19°; in the Antarctic it may have declined somewhat. However, citing Antarctic data is something of a red herring since the changes at the surface are driven by changes in the stratosphere (possibly ozone related), which then affect vertical mixing n the atmosphere.
Answer to 2: The primary cause is increasing CO2. This has been understood for over 100 years. The physics behid it are clear even if the details of its impact over different regions is complicated by the complexity of earth-atmosphere interactions.
Answer to 1: 'Global' temperatures do seem to have risen in the past 100 years, but for many reasons this is hard to measure. More obvious are regional increses and decreases in mean annual temperatures, e.g. in Siberia temperature has increased about 19°; in the Antarctic it may have declined somewhat. However, citing Antarctic data is something of a red herring since the changes at the surface are driven by changes in the stratosphere (possibly ozone related), which then affect vertical mixing n the atmosphere.
Answer to 2: The primary cause is increasing CO2. This has been understood for over 100 years. The physics behid it are clear even if the details of its impact over different regions is complicated by the complexity of earth-atmosphere interactions.
Answer to 3: Of course we can. We need to find a different energy source than fossil fuels. Aside from warming the atmosphere, in a couple of hundred years or sooner, corals and calcareous plankton (dominant lifeforms in the ocean) will begin to dissolve and no longer be able to form. These lifeforms have been here for billions of years.
Answer to 4: Good question. Personally I favor finding alternative sources of energy. However, sticking our heads in the sand and assuming that that scientists only believe in 'global warming' because they are politically motivated by their hatred of Bush or capitalism truly lunacy.
My advice: buy that north slope farmland.
Answer to 3: Of course we can. We need to find a different energy source than fossil fuels. Aside from warming the atmosphere, in a couple of hundred years or sooner, corals and calcareous plankton (dominant lifeforms in the ocean) will begin to dissolve and no longer be able to form. These lifeforms have been here for billions of years.
Answer to 4: Good question. Personally I favor finding alternative sources of energy. However, sticking our heads in the sand and assuming that that scientists only believe in 'global warming' because they are politically motivated by their hatred of Bush or capitalism truly lunacy.
My advice: buy that north slope farmland.
Hmm..........
Being an Alaskan for most of my life (28 years), I was all for Global Warming (Alaskans for Global Warming, or AGW)
But, well, history really does linate all of this quite well. So:
1. We are just now hitting a average mean that is eclipsing a previous record in 1733, 266 some odd years ago. At that time the average mean rose 3.25 degrees C in 4 decades, nearly 6 times what has happened in the past 150 years. In the past 1000 years nearly 1/3 of it had an average mean above our current average, and that ended 600 years ago, I think we can rule out Man's influence with greenhouse gasses.
2. The closest item that correlates happens to be the enegry output from the sun dependent on the duration of a Solar Cycle. With a 95% corrolation, it beats out anything else.
Hmm..........
Being an Alaskan for most of my life (28 years), I was all for Global Warming (Alaskans for Global Warming, or AGW)
But, well, history really does linate all of this quite well. So:
1. We are just now hitting a average mean that is eclipsing a previous record in 1733, 266 some odd years ago. At that time the average mean rose 3.25 degrees C in 4 decades, nearly 6 times what has happened in the past 150 years. In the past 1000 years nearly 1/3 of it had an average mean above our current average, and that ended 600 years ago, I think we can rule out Man's influence with greenhouse gasses.
2. The closest item that correlates happens to be the enegry output from the sun dependent on the duration of a Solar Cycle. With a 95% corrolation, it beats out anything else.
3. Nope. Should we? Well, since the average temps from 1000 years ago were easy higher than now, we could farm greenland, and the waters of the ocean were not that high (settlements a couple thousand years old are still on the coast) I think we are just fine.
4. Don't worry about it. We will be fine.
Josh
3. Nope. Should we? Well, since the average temps from 1000 years ago were easy higher than now, we could farm greenland, and the waters of the ocean were not that high (settlements a couple thousand years old are still on the coast) I think we are just fine.
4. Don't worry about it. We will be fine.
Josh
Oh yeah- the CO2 connection is backwards a bit. Since humans only account for about 3% of all CO2 production, we are a very small portion of somthing else that is going on. And since 95% of the greenhouse affect is from DiHydrogen- Monoxide (H2O) CO2 from humans accounts for only .015% of the total greenhouse affect. While CO2 levels are higher, they do not directly connect to temprature increase. It could be said that CO2 levels are a result of something, not the cause.
Josh
Oh yeah- the CO2 connection is backwards a bit. Since humans only account for about 3% of all CO2 production, we are a very small portion of somthing else that is going on. And since 95% of the greenhouse affect is from DiHydrogen- Monoxide (H2O) CO2 from humans accounts for only .015% of the total greenhouse affect. While CO2 levels are higher, they do not directly connect to temprature increase. It could be said that CO2 levels are a result of something, not the cause.
Josh
I agree with Josh. Man's contibution to greenhouse gases is so far to small to have a significant effect on climate.
I agree with Josh. Man's contibution to greenhouse gases is so far to small to have a significant effect on climate.
look i dont have much knowledge one way or the other.
But let me make some pertinent observations.
a. HUBRIS: what f***ing arrogance we humans have. that we can effect global climate change.
b. there have been and will be secular changes in the earths temerature. If anything, my guess is that the long term graph of avg temps would be interpreatble only in hindsight. kinda like tecjniocal nalysis og the tedlines of the DOW Jones avg. BUy based on your read of those trendlines at your own peril.
look i dont have much knowledge one way or the other.
But let me make some pertinent observations.
a. HUBRIS: what f***ing arrogance we humans have. that we can effect global climate change.
b. there have been and will be secular changes in the earths temerature. If anything, my guess is that the long term graph of avg temps would be interpreatble only in hindsight. kinda like tecjniocal nalysis og the tedlines of the DOW Jones avg. BUy based on your read of those trendlines at your own peril.
Commenting by HaloScan
