Scientists who study the Earth's climate say humans are making it warmer
Published Sunday, July 27, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Photo Gallery
Photo Gallery
FAIRBANKS—Twenty thousand years ago, it was so cold in North America -- and had been for so long -- that much of the continent was covered by ice two miles thick.
A hundred and five thousand years before that, it was so warm that giant ice caps melted and the oceans rose 15 feet above their current levels.
The climate has been changing on its own since long before coal-fired power plants and SUVs. In the last 150,000 years, the Earth as a whole has been a few degrees warmer than it is now and many degrees cooler.
So how do scientists know humans are causing the planet to warm now?
Here’s an attempt to answer that question.
The greenhouse effect
The basic idea of human-induced, or anthropogenic, climate change is fairly simple.
Over the last 150 years, humans have burned enormous amounts of fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Carbon that was trapped underground for millions of years formed carbon dioxide as the fossil fuels were burned in power plants, furnaces, and car engines.
At the same time, humans cut down forests that helped soak up the gas.
Carbon dioxide has built up in the air around us to quantities much higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years -– as far back as scientists can tell by studying the air trapped in giant ice caps. Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million molecules of air. Now it’s about 385 parts and increasing at a rate of about 2 parts per year.
Methane and nitrous oxide, which are produced in agriculture, have both risen to levels higher than at any time in at least 10,000 years. Methane, which hadn’t risen above 790 parts per billion in more than half a million years, is now at roughly 1,800 parts.
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases spread out across the globe -- from the ground to the top of the atmosphere -- and stay aloft for years, decades, or centuries. The gases let in all of the energy coming from the sun but block some of the energy radiating out from the Earth. (They’re called greenhouse gases because the walls of a greenhouse have a similar effect, although through a different process.)
Ultimately, the same amount of energy comes to the Earth as leaves the Earth -- if it didn’t, we’d have runaway warming or cooling -- but greenhouse gases keep the planet warmer than it would be otherwise.
That’s “global warming.”
“Climate change” can be natural or human-induced and includes things that happen because of global warming, such as changes in precipitation, atmospheric pressure, and wind patterns.
The warming trend
One reason scientists know the recent warming is caused mostly by humans is that it’s happening very fast and in a way one would expect from an increase in greenhouse gases.
Climate scientists readily acknowledge that the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally in the past. From physical evidence and pieced-together temperature records, they know the Earth has cycled between ice ages and periods of warmth, most likely in response to natural oscillations in the planet’s orbit and tilt, which affect how much solar energy reaches the Earth. (For the last 15,000 years, the earth has been in a relatively warm, interglacial period.)
Scientists have also figured out how to measure solar radiation directly and how to account for other natural factors affecting the climate, such as volcanic eruptions. They estimate that volcanic activity, which cools the Earth, and changes in solar radiation could have caused only a slight warming in the last few hundred years. Instead, global temperatures have risen quickly -- about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the founder and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, challenges this thinking.
Akasofu, a physicist specializing in the aurora borealis, points out that the Earth has been warming for nearly 200 years -- since before humans started burning lots of fossil fuels -- and argues that most of the recent warming is natural. He says some of the warming is probably from changes in solar radiation and some from changes within the climate system.
“There are so many times the Earth was warmer than now, or colder than now,” he said last fall. “We are not affecting the climate change.”
Most climate scientists say we are.
While global temperatures have shifted by as much as 12 degrees Fahrenheit between ice ages and warm interglacial periods, those changes have played out over thousands of years. The current rate of warming is already much faster than normal, and if projections of future warming prove true, the change would likely be faster than at any time in the last 50 million years, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (“Abrupt” climate shifts that led to rapid warming in the past were likely local in nature rather than global.)
The Earth is also warming in a way one would expect from having more greenhouse gases rather than an increase in energy from the sun. Nighttime minimum temperatures, which are more affected by heat-trapping greenhouse gases, have warmed faster than daily average temperatures.
And it’s warming in most parts of the world, which wouldn’t be the case with a natural cycle like El Nino or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The physics of climate change
Scientists also know how greenhouse gases work, and they can estimate how much energy will be trapped by a certain amount of gas.
Without any greenhouse gases, they estimate the average temperature on Earth would be well below freezing -- instead, it’s about 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
The most important greenhouse gas by far is actually water vapor, a natural part of the climate system. But carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases also play a critical role in determining the Earth’s temperature.
Carbon dioxide now makes up three or four molecules in every 10,000 molecules of air. With six molecules, or twice as much carbon dioxide as there was before the Industrial Revolution, scientists estimate the Earth would be about 3.5 to 8 degrees warmer than now.
“The physics of greenhouse gases and their radiative roles is pretty well known,” says John Walsh, a climate scientist at UAF who has studied the Arctic climate for most of the last three decades.
In addition to figuring out how greenhouse gases work -- it has to do with energetic vibrations of individual molecules -- scientists have studied how concentrations of gases and global temperatures have lined up in the past. Almost always, when there were a lot of greenhouse gases, temperatures were high.
In the past, changes in temperature have generally preceded changes in greenhouse gases, suggesting the warming caused the increase in gases rather than vice-versa. But because of various feedback mechanisms, changes in temperature and changes in greenhouses gases largely go hand-in-hand.
In this case, scientists believe the increase in gases is driving the increase in temperature.
The IPCC
Information on climate change is compiled and presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme and is run by experts in climate science from around the world.
The IPCC doesn’t do its own scientific research, but puts together lengthy reports every few years based on the work of experts in a wide range of scientific and socio-economic fields. Three separate reports cover the science of climate change, the current and predicted impacts of climate change, and what governments can do to slow down the process.
The reports are meant to reflect the best understanding of the scientific community at the time and not to advocate any specific policy.
Hundreds of scientists contribute to the reports as researchers, authors, and reviewers in a process that spans roughly three years. Authors nominated by individual countries and chosen by the IPCC solicit studies published by atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, cryologists (scientists who study ice), physicists, and other scientists, and they draft the reports. The reports are then reviewed by experts in the field and by governments.
Walsh, the scientist at UAF, was one of six lead authors responsible for one section of one of the reports published last year.
The number of people involved was amazing, he said earlier this year.
Walsh’s chapter covered the impacts of climate change in the polar regions and ultimately referenced hundreds of peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. According to Walsh, drafts were sent to roughly 50 experts for review, and authors got back about 1,500 comments.
The final report was published last April.
In October, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness about climate change and providing a foundation for the action needed to address it.
The climate models
A major part of the IPCC reports are the projections of what will happen to the climate in the future.
The projections are based on complex models that try to mimic the Earth’s climate and other natural systems. Scientists build the models by programming supercomputers with equations representing known physical processes like radiative energy flow, precipitation and air circulation. They plug in numbers for incoming solar radiation and concentrations of greenhouse gases and run the models to estimate temperature and other climate variables.
Because of the complexity and variability of the climate, the models are better at predicting long-term trends over large areas rather than changes in specific places or at specific times.
For the IPCC reports, climate modelers from around the world all run their computers with the same set of assumptions about greenhouse gas emissions. The different scenarios try to show what will happen if humans limit our use of fossil fuels, if we keep using them as we are, or if we start burning more.
Each model gives a slightly different answer, but on average they predict the Earth will warm another 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if we limit our emissions and 7 degrees if we don’t.
The climate models aren’t perfect -- they’re bad at assessing the impacts of clouds, for instance -- but they do reflect scientists’ best understanding of how the climate works and the effect of greenhouse gases.
In addition to projecting future changes, the models provide additional evidence that humans are already warming the planet. The models can’t explain the recent warming without taking into account the increase in greenhouse gases.
Scientific knowledge is never certain, and the scientific process often follows a winding path toward the truth. The field of climate change is no exception, and in fact presents special challenges because of the complexity of the climate and lack of opportunity for wide-scale experimentation (there’s only one Earth).
But the effect of greenhouse gases is well understood, and scientists are confident that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming around the globe.
The IPCC reports acknowledge that some areas of climate science are better understood than others, and they use a rating system to convey how certain the science is on any given subject. “Likely,” for instance, means chances are better than two-thirds that something is true.
The IPCC’s main finding -- that most of the observed warming in recent decades is caused by humans -- is rated as “very likely,” meaning scientists are more than 90 percent certain it’s true.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
>>Stefan Milkowski, 30, covers state government and statewide issues. Originally from upstate New York, he moved to Fairbanks during a cold snap in December 2005. Before joining the News-Miner, Stefan studied writing at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York City and wrote for a weekly paper in Massachusetts. He likes biking, canoeing, skiing, snowboarding and generally being outside. He's getting into hunting and fishing, too.<<
Don't see any credentials of climatology in Stefan's resume. The University of "Google" is probably where he's obtained his vast knowledge of the subject.
Newsminer, are you ever going promote what is best for Alaska?
Parts per million by volume (ppmv)
100% = 1,000,000
10% = 100,000
01% = 10,000
.1% = 1,000
.01% = 100
.001% = 10
385 ppm = .0385%, which is less than 40% of .1% of a million. At this low concentration how can carbon dioxide affect global temperatures?
Universal Industrial Gases, Inc (www.uigi.com, click “Gas Properties, uses & Safety; click MSDS; click CO2-gas) The following is from this website (SIC)
Carbon Dioxide gas is colorless. At low concentrations, the gas is odorless. At higher concentrations it has a sharp, acidic odor. It will act as an asphyxiant and an irritant.
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8%(80,000 ppm) nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period, 490 to 443 mya, were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were 4400 ppm nearly 12 times higher than today, which means something else besides CO2 plays a role in temperature increase.
Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?
By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2007 - 11:30 ET
A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.
For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995.
McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998.
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leader board, behind even 1900.
Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.
Our mainstream media uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of man made global warming by repeated reporting of data and events that appear to support it, and ignoring those that contradict it.
Global climate modeling is a contradiction in terms. It is a speculation with computers, the most stupid form of speculation.
Climate modelers are like people who believe that playing with Microsoft WORD is the sole basis for becoming a well recognized novelist.
This report received very, very little media attention when the report was published.
October 4, 2007
A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA's Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.
Son Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1975 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's.
Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain -- maybe 1/3° C.
Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."
So the only evidence science has regarding human caused global warming are based on questionable use of computer modeling and zero physical evidence...
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/computer_mo...
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/feedback.ht...
hey foxalaska, since you seem to be in the know, tell us, what is best for alaska?
Well. The research is just stunning and the debate is obviously over - Stefen Milkowski's unbiased article has shown me the error of my thoughts. Since this is now what I think, you must all agree, too, and sign up to buy carbon credits.
So cute!!! People who have a math level of 7th grade examining article headlines! You see kids, how it works is, people with brains collect raw data over years and years and then...see...they “analyze” it and obvious trends sorta just pop out. Now stay with me folks. You see these trends form a sort of line if graphed and all of those lines point to a warming trend over the last 100 years. Now here is the tricky part...we are able to examine past warming trends from the gasses trapped in things like ice fields and even layers of the earth.
Okay...you still able to follow me? These samples have shown that there has not been a rise in temperature this sudden and sharp ever. Okay. Ever.
Now let's try a little logic kids- Do you REALLY think all of this pollution, gasses and man made activity have NO affect on climate at all??? REALLY? None???? Okay, let’s assume you have an IQ above an ant. You must agree it has some affect...I mean how can it not? Forget the science...think for a moment. Here is a test! If you still think it is ALL made up- go to your garage, be sure the garage door is shut, and start the car. Sit in your car and see if after 30 minutes you notice any affects. If not, write me tomorrow and I will apologize. You were right. If you do notice affects, well the world might be a better place!!!!
Now we put it all together kids. They are simply saying...as a trend...the ENTIRE earth's temp is rising at a rate never experienced on earth. Since we are the ONLY variable (do I need to define that term) that is new to earth...WE kinda think WE have at least something to do with it.
Conserving, not wasting, using less gas, cleaner air, cleaner water, etc., what in the HECK could you be complaining about??? How stupid must a person be to bother arguing about climate change when the only thing advocates are suggesting are all helpful, good things for all of us!!!! No one is asking you to kill you children, well, they aren't. They are asking you to not drive your sad Hummer and to maybe turn the lights off when you are not using them.
Poor babies! It is a cool summer in Alaska, so climate change must be a myth. Personally, I think the problem is how poorly educated most people are in this area. We have a mass of military and trades people, who do great work, but have never been expected to educate themselves about anything in the world. Our drop out rates are among the highest in the nation. The comments reflect the results!
So stick with what you understand! Little guns and toys that make you feel like a man. Leave science to people who have studied for years and who actually understand what they are talking about. Enjoy your SUV and go to your church. God will care for you. Let the rest of us worry about making the world a better place to live.
I know that prayers to Al Gore don't work, but go ahead and keep on praying. I'll wait 'til the evidence is actually in, thank you. But, heck I guess my education is too low because I really don't want to live in a "better" world that YOU had a hand in creating, newsminerbrainminers.
What was that business you own again? Or is it social services...?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
Environmentalists Oppose New CO2 Scrubber Idea
Despite what many global warming alarmists assert in the media, there are many articles in the world's leading science publications contradicting the assertion that "the debate is over" about global warming. These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming. The following is the second of a three-part list of many such articles.
Compiled by Peter Risdon.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
newsminerbrainminers,
Really? You think sarcastic insults proves your point and makes you superior? I think you're a jack---, leave your superiority complex up on the hill.
Non-lemming,
You took the words out of my dumb ole mouth.
Olypopper
newsminerbrainminers, dont worry about the haters.
I think it's farting cows.
I would feel better about the IPCC if they would release all of the names and credentials of all of the "2500 scientists" who supposedly approved their findings - and if they would submit the underlying data for those findings to peer review. So far, they have done neither.
There is not overwhelming scientific consensus about "human caused global warming". Please see this link:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...
Unlike the IPCC, the signers of the Manhattan Declaration have chosen to make both their names and credentials public.
One of the pillars of the IPCC's work is Michael Mann's famous (or infamous) "hockey stick" temperature graph. This graph is pretty much now discredited, largely thanks to the work of Stephen McIntyre. Here is a link to his presentation on the data proxy and statistical flaws in Mann's work that McIntyre gave at the University of Ohio in May of this year:
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf...
Warning - this is his full presentation and is 41 pages long - but it is well worth reading.
Finally, consider this quote:
“The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
That is from the IPCC's Climate Change 2001 Report.
Saying something is so, even with endless repetition, does not make it so. Be skeptical - it's the basis of good science.
' Awkward for global warming alarmists : ice in Antarctica is growing.
This is an awkward topic for global warming alarmists, because if global warming were, er, global, this shouldn't be happening. '
' Awkward for anti-global warming alarmists : ice in North Pole is gone.
This is an awkward topic for anti-global warming alarmists, because if global warming is'nt, er, happening, this shouldn't be happening. '
I agree with the peer review folks. This global warming debate is the only subject in recent history that has gotten a free pass in the press. The "science" it is based on is NOT peer reviewed. I think the author of the DNM article would have helped us out if he would have explained why the scientist-detractors arn't buying all the rhetoric. If we look at the scientists' data and not the environmentalists' data we may get a better look at what is going on.
And no they arn't asking us to kill our babies, clearly that is for the other recent letters to the editor. But they are asking us to make some pretty increadible changes to our economy so we can reduce a gas that is suspect at best in causing earth's warming.
Even more awkward is the fact that the ice is not gone.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1....
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2008/im...
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2008/cam1-2...
Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes.
The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.
"Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.
They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. "Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.
the Gakkel Ridge they had come to explore. The 1,800-kilometre-long ridge, which cuts across the Arctic from Greenland to Siberia, is in international waters. It is one of the planet's "spreading" ridges where molten rock rises up from inside the earth creating new crust.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story....
user!! Did you actually watch the video? http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2008/cam1-2......
There is standing water and rain everywhere at the end of the video! Thanks, that made my night!! No, my week! LOL!
Of course there is water in july but there is still ice as well DOH!!
nygiantsfan - I have a theory that the dinosaurs farted themselves into extinction as well. Isn't methane 23,000 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat?
Oh! You got me!! Not all the ice is gone!! Man! I was sooooo wrong!
Its like what il'Rushbo says..."People, when I put ice in my drink and it melts in the glass...does my drink overflow!! No, People!"
Thanks user...between you and Rushy...I now know we can all rest easy!
Fun stuff!
I think that the people who have brought out both sides of the argument without attacking each other, should be thanked for giving us something to think about.
Why are there pools of water at the North Pole in summertime? The water is meltwater from the snow melting in Summer temperatures that are above freezing. The pools of water are called melt ponds, and are observed at both web cam locations.
1987 pic of open water at the poles
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/NP%2...
spring of 1999
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/NP%2...
Now find me a photo of North Pole with no ice in sight anywhere on the horizon.
I cant the ice cam melted into the ocean! OHHHH! Rim-shot! Thank You and Good-Night!
"Most climate scientists say we are." Stefan - Most? Give me names like you did with DR. Akasofu, who CHALLENGES the idea. Otherwise don't make such claims, please.
Aren't the same scientists, the ones who tell us that humans are making earth warmer, the same ones telling us that Mars is also going through an extreme global warming period because of CO2 and such?
Wow! The evidence is in? Global warming is real? And I should just ride my mountain bike to work. Then probably get hit by a sleepy driver? Or even better get malled by a few black bears. Humm seems strange that the ones that have all the answers live just 4 miles from their work. It's hasn't been proven and ideas about putting yourself in your garage then leaving your car running is plain stupid. These idea whole story needs to be put in a place where it should go like in fairy tales and of course science fiction. Every week we get a story like this like my kids don't hear know about it without hearing weekly reminders.
Some questions I'd like to see discussed whenever this topic is brought up:
When, in the history of this planet, has the climate ever been static?
What happened to the glaciers that carved out the Great Lakes? And when?
How do you explain the presence of fossilized tropical plants and dinosaurs in the Arctic?
What do you say to the 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition disputing global warming? Petitionproject.org
According to Rush, the NRA, and President Bush, man made global warming is BS. That's good enough for me. But if it is happening we should blame China and bomb them.
MrGreen,
here are two links:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
http://www.climatescienceinternational.o...
These links give evidence that many highly qualified scientists oppose the propaganda of the Church of Global Warming called the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
Recently, NASA's James Hansen compared the coal trains to the power plant stations with the death trains to the extermination camps of the Nazis. Hansen is the scientific mentor of former Vice President Al Gore.
triproad - "BS. That's good enough for me."
Yes, sadly that is good enough for you...
"Far out" she says breathing heavily. "FAR OUT"
Check out www.aip.org for some good info on the work related to global warming. If you read through some of the essays on there just about every isolated fact/myth that some of the posters present as 'proof' that GW is not taking place is debunked. I read a lot of stuff from people who seem to imply that this is some idea that appeared out of nowhere in the last few years. It is not. Also, somehow, this idea that scientists whose work reinforces the view that the effect is real and that it is driven by man are somehow out to get us, and are promoting some nefarious agenda of Al Gore - these ideas are puzzling. Note that these outfits like ICSC have an explicitly stated mission that is to take down people on the wrong side of the GW issue - that is reason enough to be skeptical of the completeness of the info they present.
To repeat myself - they haven't combined all the global warming articles, so...
This is an interesting article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...
So cute!!! People who have a math level of 7th grade examining article headlines! You see kids, how it works is, people with brains collect raw data over years and years and then...see...they “analyze” it and obvious trends sorta just pop out. Now stay with me folks. You see these trends form a sort of line if graphed and all of those lines point to a warming trend over the last 100 years. Now here is the tricky part...we are able to examine past warming trends from the gasses trapped in things like ice fields and even layers of the earth.
Okay...you still able to follow me? These samples have shown that there has not been a rise in temperature this sudden and sharp ever. Okay. Ever.
Now let's try a little logic kids- Do you REALLY think all of this pollution, gasses and man made activity have NO affect on climate at all??? REALLY? None???? Okay, let’s assume you have an IQ above an ant. You must agree it has some affect...I mean how can it not? Forget the science...think for a moment. Here is a test! If you still think it is ALL made up- go to your garage, be sure the garage door is shut, and start the car. Sit in your car and see if after 30 minutes you notice any affects. If not, write me tomorrow and I will apologize. You were right. If you do notice affects, well the world might be a better place!!!!
Now we put it all together kids. They are simply saying...as a trend...the ENTIRE earth's temp is rising at a rate never experienced on earth. Since we are the ONLY variable (do I need to define that term) that is new to earth...WE kinda think WE have at least something to do with it.
Conserving, not wasting, using less gas, cleaner air, cleaner water, etc., what in the HECK could you be complaining about??? How stupid must a person be to bother arguing about climate change when the only thing advocates are suggesting are all helpful, good things for all of us!!!! No one is asking you to kill you children, well, they aren't. They are asking you to not drive your sad Hummer and to maybe turn the lights off when you are not using them.
Poor babies! It is a cool summer in Alaska, so climate change must be a myth. Personally, I think the problem is how poorly educated most people are in this area. We have a mass of military and trades people, who do great work, but have never been expected to educate themselves about anything in the world. Our drop out rates are among the highest in the nation. The comments reflect the results!
Leave science to people who have studied for years and who actually understand what they are talking about. Enjoy your SUV and go to your church. God will care for you. Let the rest of us worry about making the world a better place to live.
(NMBM...Pretty sure that David Evans, you know, the PhD who wrote the article? didn't just read the headline...but your repeating of the exact same thing you wrote at 12:36 on this same thread sure has me re-thinking my own smarts...yesireebob)
That would be so funny!
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.