

  (Source: Rensselaer)
New State of the Climate report provides evidence









Comments     Threshold


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/2010 1:10:18 PM , Rating: -1
"I think it is funny that anyone can stand firmly on one side of this issue or the other at all. We have been on this earth for such a short amount of time."
Yes, it is true we have been on this earth for such a short amount of time. But do you know what happened in an even shorter amount of time? CO2 levels growing at an exponential rate in the past 200 years after over 1000 years of zero growth.

RE: Not the issue
By Da W on 8/5/2010 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
Is burning oil a good thing? No? Then try to burn as little as possible, that's all.

RE: Not the issue
By ppardee on 8/5/2010 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 4
Burning oil is bad? How so? There are some that believe that it is the only worth-while contribution humanity can make to the future of the world. Burning oil releases carbon. All life (that I know of, could be wrong) on the planet is carbon-based. Carbon is a finite resource. We are freeing it from its rocky tomb (you like that? I'm a poet!) making it more available for living organisms to use.

Saying that burning oil is bad is like saying chocolate is bad. Just because your mother (or Al Gore) told you it is so, doesn't make it so. Chocolate is a very nutrient dense food with lots of happy vitamins and minerals. Oil is dark like chocolate... need I say more?

RE: Not the issue
By gixser on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/5/2010 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 5
Except CO2 levels were what? 8 times during the Dino age.
That time period had great levels of diversity in the ecosystem. CO2 is plant food pure and simple.

With that plants getting what they need we get energy from them. Win win

I still don't get how something that makes up .03% of the atmosphere lead to global warming.

RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:36:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well the unexplained fact they never want to discuss is that 8 times greater CO2 concentration in the past. The simple fact that when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere existed we also had one of the highest growth rates for plants and not a total global meltdown killing all life on earth that their models say will happen at levels 2 times what they are now.

If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?

Maybe the CO2 levels increasing and warmer temperatures in the last 200 years coincide with the industrial revolution because the warmer temperatures allowed man to be more productive with his time instead of spending most of it trying to gather food and fuel to survive the long hard winters. Just something to ponder.

RE: Not the issue
By Laitainion on 8/6/2010 4:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
One possibility is that global conditions were different in general, the location of the continents was completely different, air/sea currents were different. Who can say what effect that would had? I agree, the current predictions that doubling CO2 levels will kill everything is likely wrong as I think there are too many variables involved but I don't agree that comparing it to a different situation from millions of years ago is proof of this.

RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/6/2010 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is what I have been saying for a while now. There are just too many variables to consider to place one above all others as causing changes in climate. Solar output varies, our orbit varies slightly, heck it was even shown that after the earth quake in Haiti and Chile that the rotational period of the earth changed minutely. Now with a study pointing to soot being stronger at warming than CO2, what else are we not seeing that can cause it. How much do we know about warming periods after ice ages in ancient times to say wether or not temps will rise quickly or slowly? One article this year even pointed out that tree rings do not necessarily grow faster in warmer years but seem to also be dependant on the levels of cosmic radiation. Who knows, what we are experiencing now may be perfectly normal and yet we are trying to stop it.

Reduce pollution for the sake of a cleaner world, reduce energy usage for the sake of saving money and prolonging our supplies. It has been warmer in the past, it will be warmer in the future even if man disappeared from the face of the earth today. We need to learn how to adapt to the changes more than worry about our tiny contribution if any to the changes.

RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:13:14 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong conclusion. For one, its a known fact that weather patterns were significantly different in the past. For example, Dinosaurs didn't need to worry about coastal flooding overruning the world centers of commerce. Likewise, with so much plant life, the sustained warmer temperatures wouldn't have had a major effect on the food chain. [The opposite is true now, especially considering we already have a food supply problem...]


Different weather patterns. Remember, the geology of the contenints is totally different now, and the land/ocean layout plays a significant role in global weather patterns.

RE: Not the issue
By cerx on 8/6/2010 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
We've also had several ice ages and other climate changes since then ... do you think humanity (as we know it) could survive another? Not saying a thinning of the herd wouldn't be good ... I just think it's already too cold where I live ...

RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/21/2010 7:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Then move?

