Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't agree entirely with that assesment. Human activities can have dramatic positive and negative impacts on the surface of the earth. Some examples include: 1) Forest clearing, 2) Urban development + factual evidence of urban heat island, 3) Industrial development, and China's rush to build a coal plant a week. (The trend in CO2 emissions coorelates well with the beginning of the industrial revolution) 4) The agricultural revolution increased the overall carrying capacity of the planet, but also led to dramatic increases in fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides, etc. The increase in yields can not last forever because of the finite amount of natural resources that include oil and natural gas. Fertilizers are derived from natural gas, and farm machinery needs oil to run.
I am all for conserving our precious resources, eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, developing alternative energy, etc. As long as we don't have raise taxes or radically alter our way of life. A clean planet is good for us now and our future. It can be done rationally without all the propaganda and hysteria.
Human activities do have a dramatic impact on the earth. Are they the primary reason for the cyclical increase in temperatures leading from the 1940's to the 1990's? In my opinion no. If they were then why are the 1930's still the warmest decade? Why was the medieval warming period warmer than today? Why did temperatures peak in 1998 and now appear to be cooling quite rapidly?
Temperature Map for the United States, January to October 2008:
"Global Temperatures
The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces in 2007 was +0.55°C (+0.99°F) above the 20th century average, ranking 5th warmest in the period of record. The effect of continued presence of La Niña conditions on the December global surface temperature resulted in a slightly lower ranking for the year as a whole. Globally averaged land temperatures were 1.02°C (1.84°F) while the ocean temperatures were 0.38°C (0.68°F) above average, ranking as the warmest and ninth warmest, respectively. The land and ocean surface temperatures for the Northern and Southern Hemisphere ranked second and tenth warmest, respectively. As discussed in the Temperature Trends section below, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 0.6°C (1°F) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend. See the global time series.
2007 began with a weak warm phase (El Niño) ENSO which had developed during late 2006, but immediately began its transition to a neutral phase during February 2007, persisting as a neutral phase until the boreal summer. During August, sea surface temperatures (SST) anomalies were cooler-than-average in the Niño 1+2 and 3 regions indicating the first signs of a developing cold event (La Niña). By October, La Niña conditions strengthened when SST anomalies continued to decrease in the Niño 3.4. By the end of December, moderate-strength La Niña conditions were present across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. This La Niña event is likely to persist into early 2008, according to the latest information from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. For more information on the state of ENSO during 2007, please see the ENSO monitoring annual summary."
It's interesting that the World numbers show much more recent warming compared to the lower 48 states. The previous U.S. numbers were about the same as the global numbers until Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit found errors in the calculations and NASA was forced to revise them to the current levels. Steve McIntyre is currently working on the global numbers and sees a likelihood that they will be revised downward too.
I choose to rely on the U.S. numbers because they have been checked by an independent source for accuracy. When the same can be said for the global numbers I will take them more seriously.
The fact that 1934 was the warmest year and even with all the hype about how fast things are warming up, we have not exceeded 1934.
An example of the bungled data being passed off as fact is found here:
Russia shows tremendous warmth. Apparently someone plugged in the September numbers into October. Should have been obvious that the numbers were exactly the same for both months. I am sure there will be some news reports showing how Russia is being battered by Global Warming. When the retraction occurs it will get little notice. It is also interesting that North America is the only area showing cooling. Alaska is way below average, Siberia right next to it, way above average. Not saying there is out and out deception going on here, but it makes me wonder.
I know I focused quite a bit on Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit data. There are endless examples but I only have so much time. Steve McIntyre has done a tremendous job fact checking the data available and that I why I used his examples here. I encourage you to do you own research on the subject and don't just copy and paste dubious world data.
Last edited by Winkelman; 11-11-2008 at 08:03 AM..
I think Canada will most likely benefit from warming
1) its cold winter will become considerably warmer
2) less snow and the associated snow disposal cost (which adds to millions every year for a large city such as Toronto and Montreal
3) Unlike other large countries such as US, China, Japan etc, Canada's large cities are mostly inland (Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa) and not by the ocean except Vancouver.
4) Warmer temperature will unfreeze its vast northern area, making it not only inhabitable, but also easier to develope and explore (mining, oil/gas for example)
5) The Artic route might become navigatable and very profitable for Canada
This is probably why Canada is not interested in fighting climate change by simply pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Why spends money and commit to prevent something that largely benefit it?
Maybe instead of flighting "global warming", which increasingly seems like a losing battle as most countries are half hearted including US, China, India, Brazil etc, we need to adapt to it. The earth has changed significantly many times and people were always about to adapt and survive.
I think Canada will most likely benefit from warming
1) its cold winter will become considerably warmer
2) less snow and the associated snow disposal cost (which adds to millions every year for a large city such as Toronto and Montreal
3) Unlike other large countries such as US, China, Japan etc, Canada's large cities are mostly inland (Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa) and not by the ocean except Vancouver.
4) Warmer temperature will unfreeze its vast northern area, making it not only inhabitable, but also easier to develope and explore (mining, oil/gas for example)
5) The Artic route might become navigatable and very profitable for Canada
This is probably why Canada is not interested in fighting climate change by simply pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Why spends money and commit to prevent something that largely benefit it?
Maybe instead of flighting "global warming", which increasingly seems like a losing battle as most countries are half hearted including US, China, India, Brazil etc, we need to adapt to it. The earth has changed significantly many times and people were always about to adapt and survive.
But what about the change in the natural world disrupting animals behaviours extinctions etc.
Yes, that's true, but it made habitable places unhabitable, and excessive global warming would probably do the same for some densely inhabited places. Of course the human race will survive, but there could be hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
Yes, that's true, but it made habitable places unhabitable, and excessive global warming would probably do the same for some densely inhabited places. Of course the human race will survive, but there could be hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
Agree. And think of it this way: When Miami gets flooded, who will pick up the tab?
American taxpayers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
