There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Jasmin 0]

My former boss summed it up quite nicely when she said she got hell mad over people who would stare facts in the face and still deny that greenhouse warming was not happening. "Our grandchildren are going to look at us incredulously and say "What?! You weren't sure?!"

She's one of the most cited scientists in the world with over 450 published papers (inlc 13 books) and is now director of the World Climate Research Program.

Having worked with her, I can assure you the woman is not an idiot. Her research using radiotracers says its happening.

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[deadcentre 0]

What is permanent? Is it just something has been in existance since record keeping began? Throughout the earths history i suspect those so called permanent ice caps have disappeared and reformed on numerous occasions!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Is the earth warming? Yes, I belive it is. Are humans causing it? Not in my opinion.

There is no debate about whether or not human activity is causing the earth to warm. Even Bush admits it but he just doesn't want to talk about it.
928 scientific papers were studied by the National Academy of Sciences. Not ONE paper disagreed with the assertion that we're major contributors to the warming trend.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[billvon 2,384]

>Throughout the earths history i suspect those so called permanent
>ice caps have disappeared and reformed on numerous occasions!

They have indeed. Such changes have been associated with mass extinctions several times, even though the change happens over tens of thousands of years. We are now driving such a change faster than anything (outside massive vulcanism or meteor impacts) have driven changes in the past. Might not be such a good idea.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Indeed.

From the NY Times.

Quote

June 1, 2006
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Correction Appended


The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.

The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic.

Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.

"Something extra happens when you push the world into a warmer world, and we just don't understand what it is," said one lead author, Henk Brinkhuis, an expert on ancient Arctic ecology at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.

The studies draw on the work of a pioneering 2004 expedition that defied the Arctic Ocean ice and pulled the first significant samples from the ancient layered seabed 150 miles from the North Pole: 1,400 feet of slender shafts of muck, fossils of ancient organisms and rock representing a climate history that dates back 56 million years.

While there is ample fossil evidence around the edges of the Arctic Ocean showing great past swings in climate, until now the sediment samples from the undersea depths had gone back less than 400,000 years.

The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests.

The samples also chronicle the subsequent cooling, with many ups and downs, that the researchers say began about 45 million years ago and led to the cycles of ice ages and brief warm spells of the last several million years.

Experts not connected with the studies say they support the idea that heat-trapping gases — not slight variations in Earth's orbit — largely determine warming and cooling.

"The new research provides additional important evidence that greenhouse-gas changes controlled much of climate history, which strengthens the argument that greenhouse-gas changes are likely to control much of the climate future," said one such expert, Richard B. Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University.

The $12.5 million Arctic Coring Expedition, run by a consortium called the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, was the first to drill deep into the layers of sediment deposited over millions of years in the Arctic. The samples were gathered late in the summer of 2004 as two icebreakers shattered huge drifting floes so that a third ship could hold its position and bore for core samples.

Estimates of the prevailing temperatures in the different eras represented by the sediments were made in part by tracking the comings and goings of certain algae called dinoflagellates that typically indicate subtropical or tropical conditions.

Because the samples lacked remains of shell-bearing plankton that are usually relied on to provide temperature records, the researchers used a newer method for approximating past temperatures: gauging changes in the chemical composition of the remains of a primitive phylum of microbes called Crenarchaeota.

Some scientists familiar with the research said that while there were still questions about the precision of this method at temperatures like those in the ancient Arctic Ocean, it was clear that the area was warm.

The temperatures recorded in the samples, right through the peak of warming 55 million years ago, were consistently about 18 degrees higher than those projected by computer models trying to "backcast" what the Arctic was like at the time, according to one of the papers.

Another significant discovery came in layers from 49 million years ago, where conditions suddenly fostered the summertime growth of vast mats of an ancient cousin of the Azolla duckweed that now cloaks suburban ponds. The researchers propose that this occurred when straits closed between the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

The flow of water from precipitation and rivers created a great pool of fresh water, but about 800,000 years after the blossoming of duckweed began, it ended with a sudden warming of a few additional degrees. The researchers suggest that this signaled when shifting land formations reconnected the Arctic with the Atlantic, allowing salty, warmer water to flow in, killing off the weed.

The researchers said the sediments held hints that Earth's long slide to colder conditions, and the recent cycle of ice ages and brief thaws, began quite soon after the hothouse conditions 50 million years ago. A centerpiece of their argument is a single pebble, about the size of a chickpea, found in a layer created 45 million years ago.

The stone could have been deposited on the raised undersea ridge only if it had been carried overhead in ice, said Kathryn Moran, a chief scientist on the drilling project, who teaches at the University of Rhode Island.

The stone was probably embedded in an iceberg or perhaps a plate of sea ice that tore free from a gravelly shore. It sank as the ice melted or broke apart, Dr. Moran proposed. Such "dropstones" have long been used to date when an oceanic region has been ice covered or ice free.

The amount of ice-carried debris in the sediment layers began to increase about 14 million years ago, the scientists said. That is also about when the great ice sheet that now weighs down eastern Antarctica originated, Dr. Moran noted. In general, the results from the Arctic drilling project suggest that the cooling and ice buildup at both poles happened in relative lockstep.

This simultaneity tends to support the idea that the cooling was caused by a drop in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which mix uniformly in the global atmosphere, said Dr. Moran and other members of the team.

Julie Brigham-Grette of the University of Massachusetts, an expert in past Arctic climates who was not connected with the new studies, cautioned against giving too much significance to the single sample, and particularly the single stone from 45 million years ago.

Dr. Brigham-Grette said it was vital to try to mesh the new core results with data gathered around Arctic coasts, where there is plenty of evidence for warm conditions in at least some places as recently as 2.4 million years ago.

Despite her doubts, she said, the project was a stunning achievement.

"It's all very, very exciting to me, because now we can start to rewrite the history of the Arctic," Dr. Brigham-Grette said. "It's like working a giant landscape puzzle of 500 pieces. For a while we only had 100 pieces. Now we have 100 more, and the picture is getting clearer."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Indeed.

From the NY Times.

***June 1, 2006
Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

There's quite a bit of methane trapped under the permafrost peat bogs of North America, Europe and Russia. Thaw that out and you've just released a slug of greenhouse gas that might explain such a rapid temperature rise. It's considered a positive feedback response to global warming. My question is not if it will happen, but will it happen before or after the Gulf Stream shuts down. Maybe we should start up an "Erect Nipples Futures Market" to see where the consensus is.

[rushmc 18]

No debate

Sorry, the more I learn the more nuts this topic is.

Examples:
The man who first offered the GW theory in 1998 is reagarded as a visonary until the mid 1990's when he says, "I was wrong" Now he is attacked and called a hack by those supporting his expertise before.

GW proponets show the "facts" of the ice cover pulling pack at the North Pole. What they don't tell you is the ice sheet is getting thicker at the middle because of record cold temps.

I know the flame thrower are out but guess what, I don't care.

I went into this debate about 4 years ago with an open mind. Facts, not emotions make me believe that the GW supporters do not care to look at the issue with an open mind (not all).

Belive what you want, impune those that do not agree. (I know you will) Attack those that present differing studies. ( claim they are bought off by the energy companies)

You can ever say the head of NOAA is a hack presured by GWB when he says that global warming is the biggest FUBAR he has seen being pushed on the US people. ( I know you will) but I am now convinced that GW warming is nothing more that a ploy.........you figure out why

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[opurt 0]

I truly don't know if global warming is happening.

I've been in hot button debates where it turns out the conventional wisdom is a result of junk science (won't state what it is to avoid threadjack).

But... it seems like there are primarily two kinds of folks who vehemently deny global warming:

1) People whose livelihoods significantly result in CO2 emissions (e.g. fuel, car companies)

2) Highly religious people. I heard Rush Limbaugh say on his radio show that God wouldn't allow humanity to become extinct, thus global warming and its catastrophic consequences couldn't occur (paraphrased, but the gist is captured).

My approach is this: In the 70's, scientists were wrong about the impending ice age. Thus, they might be wrong about global warming. So, it becomes a question of risk management.

Truly a topic skydivers should be intimately familiar with.

How best do we deal with the likely possibility, but not absolute certainty of global warming?

Do we want to beggar the country for a possible willow-the-wisp?

Or do we continue on like we are, making no adjustments for global warming? And having our children and grandchildren face the possible catastrophic consequences?

I dunno. Inertia and path of least resistance and highest near-term profitability will probably guide the decisions.

[smiles 0]

below quoted from cspa chat

The Pleistocene Ice Age- by: Errol
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
How come when people are whining about global warming and climate change, ozone layers, nobody ever stands up and says, "Oh for pete's sake give it a rest, it's just that we're living in what is known as The Pleistocene Ice Age, an event that has been going on for roughly 1.75 million years and has, so far, been through about 20 - 30 'glacials' or ice sheet advances and the same number of 'interglacials' or ice sheet recessions, since it started. What is happening now is just a normal part of that process."

To silence all the kvetching someone should point out that right now the Earth is in about the midpoint of an interglacial that started roughly 11,000 years ago. In another 7 to 11,000 years we will be hitting the peak of the next glacial and we (us'ns here in Edmonton at least) will be under about a mile and a half of ice.

That someone could go further and explain how previous glacials have involved cooling that produced ice sheets that have advanced to latitudes as low as 40 degrees on the Earth - which is about as far down as Madrid (Spain), New York (either one of them), and Sapporo (Japan), though not in a consistent global girdle. The various ice sheets have always had ragged bottom edges with parts of the World as low as California being covered sometimes and some parts, such as Wisconsin never having had any at all.

Conversely, they could say, some interglacials have been so warm that ice and snow disappeared completely from the planet, the oceans of the world rose several hundred feet and covered a lot of existing land masses, and palm trees grew at the north pole. South pole, too, I seem to remember.
*Nota bene for the person who is going to do this - in actual fact the interglacial we are in right now is apparently on the cold side as such things go, which means the next glacial will be a rough one so tell everyone to stock up on fleece before the rush hits.

ANYway... nobody has done this and I can't figure out why not.

Y'know, if one thinks about it for about a nanosecond one can figure out for ones self that it has been constantly getting warmer and colder - pretty much like it is doing right now - for the previous 1.75 million years of the Pleistocene... and it's been doing so without any human help whatsoever.

From there the obvious deduction is that humans are, at one time, entirely too arrogant and entirely too insecure if they can think for a second that they have any more influence over global warming OR cooling than a gerbil might. By the way, there is lots of freely available information in libraries that everyone has been studiously ignoring for years if anyone needs to reassure themselves about this.
While I am much too circumspect to say the first bit, I will come right out and say:
"Of course we are doing SOMETHING to the Earth, but humans are nowhere near capable of affecting global warming or cooling to any great extent by their day to day activities - unless, of course, you count creating a nuclear winter which isn't actually one of our normal day to day activities and which isn't going to happen anyway.

No, humans can't REALLY do global warming but what humans can, and are, doing is making this planet incapable of supporting life. Then again, since they're not making it inhospitable for ALL life, just human life (ok, and most other mammals), I guess it's not really that big a deal, eh? so we can classify any human actions more as of a sort of short term and self limiting inconvenience in the life of the Earth, like a zit, than a problem.

What you will see after humans have done their absolute worst to pooched the place and have killed themselves off as a species is that Earth will simply do its recycle thing and in a short 750,000 years or so the sum total of human existence will be nothing more than a thin black, and slightly smelly, line in the coral reefs and soil strata. I find it cool to think that, some time in the future, some sentient life form - not human - will be looking at core samples of that sort of thing under a microscope and say to itself, "Whoa!! What the heck caused THAT!".

As I say, no big deal, and our remains should skootch down nicely and become a dandy non-renewable energy source. Especially the methane that's left over from skydivers eating bad food at boogies.

.......
While the inevitable valiant and useless attempts to change how humans live and consume their environment and thus become a sustainable part OF their environment will be made towards the end (oh... wait... I'm talking about right now, aren't I), we cannot stop ourselves from being ourselves. It is our nature.

We are the Borg.
Nature as we found it is irrelevant.

We will consume it's biological distinctiveness to maintain our existence regardless of the cost and what remains will be adapted to service us.
Resistance is futile.

Errol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[Royd 0]

The whole thing is a ploy by a community of grant seeking, money grubbing, do nothings, who really hate the concept of something called work.
If it were not this issue, it would be something else.
I'll bet that you couldn't get ten percent of them to help in the reforestation of the rain forests.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

below quoted from cspa chat

The Pleistocene Ice Age- by: Errol
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
SMiles

Wow, lots of posts that deserve replies. Others are not so worthy of the effort. First, I have no idea why anyone would completely dismiss 928 scientific studies in favor of public statements from a few scientists who disagree. Especially when I've seen first hand how logic can be bastardized by an influx of corporate cash. (don't get me started on the biosolids issue) Secondly, Rush Limbaugh is a loud mouthed idiot who gets paid to be a loud mouthed idiot. No one has said anything about the extinction of the human species. Third, I agree that the earth will recover from the mess that the humans have caused and I agree that the aliens will probably indeed go "what the fuck happened here"? Fourth, yes. Earth cooling and warming is cyclical over millions of years. What is being asserted is that humans, through their consumption of millions of years worth of fossile fuel material over a couple hundred years have caused a steep upward trend in the warming cycle. I don't see how anyone can compare a gerbile population to one which spawned an industrial revolution. All we have to do is look at the facts. Parts of glaciers which haven't seen the light of day for millions of years are pouring into the ocean at a rate that is ten times faster than it was a decade ago. The gulf stream IS slowing down. Coral is dying worldwide at an alarming rate due to ocean temp rise. Indigeneous populations in the arctic are witnessing thunderstorms but they don't know what to call them because their ancestors never needed a word for them.
The list goes on. And lastly, those lazy people who "just want grant money" aren't "replanting" rainforests because they're still fighting to stop DEforestation AND they know you can't replace the rainforest! Replanting, like what's done in the forestry industry typically results in a monoculture forest which is incapable of sustaining the ecological diversity that the original old growth sustained. It's like clearing thousands of items gourmet market and replacing every item with Wonder bread and bologna. What's the problem? It's still food right?

[rushmc 18]

Points noted and one in particular caught my attention. The sentence contained the words "junk science".

nuff said

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The whole thing is a ploy by a community of grant seeking, money grubbing, do nothings, who really hate the concept of something called work.
If it were not this issue, it would be something else.
I'll bet that you couldn't get ten percent of them to help in the reforestation of the rain forests.

You have caught, if not verbatum, most of the essance of my opinion.

I would say I have moved toward this belief in the last 3 years.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Wow, you are on a roll here.

First, quite obvious you don't listen to Rush so you base your opinion of his show on what other (who also do not listen) tell you.

Second, the eruption of Mt Saint Hellen put more C02 into the atmosphere than the what autos have done since they were created.

The " few statements" are hard to find because those that bring forth studies against GW are lamblasted as idiots, nuts, ect. Heck, even the one the first brought forth the theroy in 1998 was labeled a nut when in the mid 90s he said he was wrong.

As for the glaciers. Recent ice cores pulled are showing temps higher some 50,000 years ago than what is ever perdicted today.

Nice post but it is surley not the final say (nor is mine)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Wow, you are on a roll here.

First, quite obvious you don't listen to Rush so you base your opinion of his show on what other (who also do not listen) tell you.
(snip)

You're right. I don't "listen" to Rush. I tune in his show a couple of times a week to see what the current talking points are but I don't stay long. Between his mental masturbation exercises and the relentless slew of commercials I can't stand it for very long. But he's not NEWS. He's entertainment for those who find entertainment in the verbal mycomium that spews forth from his bile (and oxycontin) laden gullett. He, along with Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage (and Coulter) and the rest of the hate mongering bunch don't have the intellectual capacity to debate issues. So they sling hate, accept caller's questions, cut them off and mute them, change their caller's argument so they can smack the straw man down, invoke the troops and God in their final rant whilst demonizing terms like "liberal" and then go to another commercial. It's sad and it's a complete waste of time for anyone who has the least bit of logical capacity. But again, I don't blame him too much. He's in it for the money. It's his listeners who insist that he's insightful that scare me.

[billvon 2,384]

>Second, the eruption of Mt Saint Hellen put more C02 into the
>atmosphere than the what autos have done since they were created.

People generate 710 million tons of CO2 a day from burning fossil fuels. Volcanoes emit about 540,000 tons a day. Mt. St. Helens, at its peak, was emitting 5000 tons a day during the eruption. Not even close.

This is why the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up pretty steadily as we have made fossil fuels our primary source of power.

>You can ever say the head of NOAA is a hack presured by GWB . . . .

Most recent NOAA statement on global warming (from their FAQ) -

----------
The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8°C from 1990-2100. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season).
----------

>GW proponets show the "facts" of the ice cover pulling pack at the
> North Pole. What they don't tell you is the ice sheet is getting thicker
>at the middle because of record cold temps.

From an article in 2004:
---------------------
At a remote field camp near the North Pole, American researchers have been fishing for answers.

"We've seen the change concentrated at the pole over the last 15 years,'' says one of the researchers, Jamie Morrison, with the University of Washington.

Each April, scientists funded by the national science foundation, take advantage of a three-week window -- when there's 24 hour daylight and temperatures hovering around freezing -- to probe the polar ice pack. The ice pack has been thinning and retreating for several decades now.
--------------------

From an article in 2000:

"The Navy numbers from the '90s seemed to show a disturbing trend, however: on average, the thickness seemed to be decreasing about 4 inches (10 cm) a year."

No one thinks the northern ice cap is getting thicker. (Unless you think the US Navy is part of the worldwide conspiracy.)

>are hard to find because those that bring forth studies against GW
>are lamblasted as idiots, nuts, etc.

The people who bring forth theories showing smoking doesn't cause cancer get a similar reaction (extreme skepticism.) Which is good. When you propose that all the work in a field in the past two decades is invalid, it should be looked upon skeptically.

>Recent ice cores pulled are showing temps higher some
>50,000 years ago than what is ever perdicted today.

Yep. Rising CO2 levels do cause higher temperatures, and past events that caused rises in CO2 (like massive vulcanism) can do the same thing that we are doing now by burning fossil fuels.

[billvon 2,384]

BTW, to maintain some credibility you may want to rename this thread:

" There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 2005" (2005 was the warmest year on record)

Then, when 2008 breaks new records, you could claim global warming stopped in 2008. It would take a little revision, but statistically you're usually going to have a few years before the next record high year hits. And who knows? Some people may even buy it.

[rushmc 18]

your funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Second, the eruption of Mt Saint Hellen put more C02 into the
>atmosphere than the what autos have done since they were created.

People generate 710 million tons of CO2 a day from burning fossil fuels. Volcanoes emit about 540,000 tons a day. Mt. St. Helens, at its peak, was emitting 5000 tons a day during the eruption. Not even close.

This is why the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up pretty steadily as we have made fossil fuels our primary source of power.

>You can ever say the head of NOAA is a hack presured by GWB . . . .

Most recent NOAA statement on global warming (from their FAQ) -

----------
The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8°C from 1990-2100. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season).
----------

>GW proponets show the "facts" of the ice cover pulling pack at the
> North Pole. What they don't tell you is the ice sheet is getting thicker
>at the middle because of record cold temps.

From an article in 2004:
---------------------
At a remote field camp near the North Pole, American researchers have been fishing for answers.

"We've seen the change concentrated at the pole over the last 15 years,'' says one of the researchers, Jamie Morrison, with the University of Washington.

Each April, scientists funded by the national science foundation, take advantage of a three-week window -- when there's 24 hour daylight and temperatures hovering around freezing -- to probe the polar ice pack. The ice pack has been thinning and retreating for several decades now.
--------------------

From an article in 2000:

"The Navy numbers from the '90s seemed to show a disturbing trend, however: on average, the thickness seemed to be decreasing about 4 inches (10 cm) a year."

No one thinks the northern ice cap is getting thicker. (Unless you think the US Navy is part of the worldwide conspiracy.)

>are hard to find because those that bring forth studies against GW
>are lamblasted as idiots, nuts, etc.

The people who bring forth theories showing smoking doesn't cause cancer get a similar reaction (extreme skepticism.) Which is good. When you propose that all the work in a field in the past two decades is invalid, it should be looked upon skeptically.

>Recent ice cores pulled are showing temps higher some
>50,000 years ago than what is ever perdicted today.

Yep. Rising CO2 levels do cause higher temperatures, and past events that caused rises in CO2 (like massive vulcanism) can do the same thing that we are doing now by burning fossil fuels.

The current head of NOAA stated last week that (and I paraphrase) Global warning is one of the biggest hoax's every put on the American people.

What ever NOAA's official position is I don't care.
The more I look into GW the more convinced I become man has very little (or nothing) to do with it.

As with idrankwhat I fully expect attacks on the sources because they don't agree witht he current polically correct crowd position

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

***

Quote

BTW, to maintain some credibility you may want to rename this thread:

" There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 2005" (2005 was the warmest year on record)

Then, when 2008 breaks new records, you could claim global warming stopped in 2008. It would take a little revision, but statistically you're usually going to have a few years before the next record high year hits. And who knows? Some people may even buy it.

One more time, very ssllllooooowwwwwlly.

I am not saying GW is not happening. I am very skeptical that man is causing it however.

And, one more time, how do you explain recent studies done on the ice fields that indicate much much warmer periods before man could have had an impact?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

So your position is that it's going to happen anyway, so we should help it along? Did I get that right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Report Warns of Threat to World's Deserts
Monday, June 5, 2006 5:56 AM EDT
The Associated Press
By DANICA KIRKA

LONDON (AP) — The world's deserts are under threat as never before, with global warming making lack of water an even bigger problem for the parched regions, a U.N. report released Monday said.

The first comprehensive look at deserts around the world said these areas, their wildlife and, most of all, their scarce water supplies are facing dramatic changes.

"Deserts are the last great wildernesses and the Cinderellas of the conservation world — out of sight, out of mind," said Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program. "Everybody cares about the mountains. Everybody is worried about the oceans. ... But nobody has really thought about the deserts before. They need help."

Desert areas make up almost one quarter of the Earth's surface, or 13 million square miles, and are home to some 500 million people, more than previously thought.

Most of the 12 desert regions whose future climate was studied face a drier future, the report said. Experts predicted that rainfall would fall by as much as 20 percent by the end of the century due to human-induced climate change.

Compounding the threat is the melting of glaciers. A large fraction of water used for agricultural and domestic purposes in deserts in the southwestern United States, Central Asia and South America come from rivers that originate in glaciers and snow-covered mountains, the report said.

The glaciers on the Tibetan plateau, for example, may decline by as much as 80 percent by the end of the century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists advising the United Nations.

"When the glaciers disappear, you are in serious trouble," said Andrew Warren, one of the report's authors and a professor of geography at University College London.

The report warned that renewable water supplies fed to deserts by large rivers are also in danger because of climate change and booming growth. It cited the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers in North America, the Tigris and Euphrates in southwestern Asia and the Amu Darya and Indus rivers in Central Asia as being under threat.

The report's authors urge more comprehensive water policies to manage the world's limited supplies more effectively. The report warned that Chad, Iraq, Niger and Syria, for example, could experience scarcity in water supplies by 2050 if nothing is done.

Warren also said urgent action was need to protect wildlife in deserts, noting that increasing wealth in Arab lands has led to convoys of hunters sweeping through the arid landscapes of Arabia, Kazakhstan and Sudan in search of prey, "shooting what they can or running it down in jeeps."

Several species of gazelle, Barbary sheep and a type of bird called the Houbara are among the species considered under threat, Warren said.

Quote

Gee I wish I could get paid millions to study the fact that deserts are caused by a lack of rain.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So your position is that it's going to happen anyway, so we should help it along? Did I get that right?

No you did not get it right.

My position is that GW is a part of the natural cycle of nature. Studies are showing that the earth has cooled and warmed from the begining. Mans activites are not significant enough to have an effect one way or another and I belive it is arogant to think otherwise.

I believe the GW retoric is believed by many but for the most part I think those leading the charge have agendas other than GW. I think is a political tool.

Nice spin attempt though.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think is a political tool........

nuts, pure capitalism/money-making - the political abuse is a side effect

follow the money

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So your position is that it's going to happen anyway, so we should help it along? Did I get that right?

There's always the scarier position.
Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt:
"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns." -- James G. Watt, The Washington Post, May 24, 1981
"We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."

Or Ann Coulter:
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view."