Global warming over

[Silver]

I wonder.......... They used to farm in Greenland. As in grow veggies, raise livestock, etc. etc. They haven't done that for centuries upon centuries. I wonder how much of a disaster it was for the earth to be that un-Godly warm at that time? Somehow the human race survived the following centuries of cold, perhaps now we can look forward to a future more like the past

[PORKER]

If it would get that warm then there would be a switch of cattle breeds to Nelore, Brahma, Zuba, and Braford .

[Silver]

[PORKER]

Ha,Ha Ha LOL,Ha HA ,Ha '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

[Shaft]

RobertMac old buddy, they say that ignorance is bliss so I guess my role is to actively try to make you unhappy. Sorry about that.

NASA has put together a very good educational series on global warming. Just watched it. Even I was able to follow along. They take no position, just explain how things work and what the data indicates.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW.html

Apparently humans are currently pumping 6.5 billion tons of carbon into the air annually more than what Mother Nature usually cycles. That's a lot of carbon. Forgive me for saying this, but how arrogant do you have to be to claim that this has no possible effect? Check out LA on a theoretically sunny day in June sometime.

The debate is moot, however, because all we have to do is stick around another ten years or so and see what happens. That should settle things conclusively one way or another. Given that the polar icecap shrunk last year at a rate far beyond even the most dire predictions, we may not have to wait that long.

Stay well.

[PORKER]

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find
Last Updated: Friday, February 15, 2008 | 10:17 AM ET
CBC News
There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.
Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year."

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

Winter sea ice could keep expanding
The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007.

That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130 kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from where it was last year.

The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global warming, since those regions are expected to feel the impact of climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.

Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land surfaces.

[Shaft]

[RobertMac]

Shaft, I watched the intro at the link you gave...I'm sorry, but I wasn't impressed. If I find the time, I may watch the rest of it. In the clip they show the bare ground of a clear cut and the gullible swoon at the destruction...but they won't go back to the same spot in 3-5 years and show all the greenery that is using CO2 and producing oxygen and new trees to cut down.

CO2 is food for plants...an increase in the level of CO2 will increase plant growth...food problem solved.
Does LA need to clean up its smog problem?? ABSOLUTELY!!! I'm not advocating ignoring pollution...by all means we need to cleanup the messes we make. But we don't have enough impact on enough of the earth's surface to affect global change...I have more faith in Nature.

In the early part of the last century, the cry was global warming and planet doom.
In the 1970s, scientist cried of the next ice age and planet doom.
Now, it's back to global warming and impending doom unless we change our light bulbs, buy a hybrid, and quit eating meat!?!?!?!? You need an SUV???

Staying well and happy!

[Shaft]

RobertMac,

Sometimes Mother Nature throws a few curveballs into the mix.

http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/science/story.html?id=7a327244-d0cb-4e0c-90d7-f4569327987e&k=665

I wouldn't blindly rely on increased plant growth to soak up the excess CO2. Especially given that we have cut down most of the trees that once covered the Earth and, as others have noted, paved over much of the finest farmland on the planet (and continue to do so).

Doom and gloom isn't my mantra, but neither is the ostrich approach. I believed my beloved Grannie when she told me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Still do. It fits well with my life experience so far.

Don't need an SUV, thanks, but a 4WD minivan is always welcome.

[RobertMac]

[Shaft]

RobertMac,

"Land gains and loses carbon by various processes: some natural-like photosynthesis and decomposition, some connected to land use and land management practices, and some responding to the increases of carbon dioxide or other nutrients necessary for plant growth. These gains or losses dominate the net land exchange of carbon dioxide with the atmosphere, but some riverine loss to oceans is also significant. Most quantifiable, as by forest and soil inventories, are the above- and below-ground carbon losses from land clearing and the gains in storage in trees from forest recovery and management. Changes in the frequency of forest fires, such as from fire suppression policies, and agricultural practices for soil conservation may modify the carbon stored by land. Climate variations, through their effects on plant growth and decomposition of soil detritus, also have large effects on terrestrial carbon fluxes and storage on a year-to-year basis. Land modifications, mainly in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, may have been a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over much of the last century. However, quantitative estimates have only been possible over the last two decades, when forest clearing had shifted to the tropics."

Maybe we should both just suck it up and buy the book.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10139

I'm willing to pretend I understand all this stuff if you are.

[RobertMac]

Shaft,

You are far smarter than I, as you have already established my blissful ignorance, so please help me out here...

How does this CO2 increase compare with the daily consumption of CO2 by plants and any other organisms that use CO2?

How much of the Earth's surface is relatively unaffected by mankind?

Let me make clear that I'm not against addressing pollution issues...my issue is with the politics of global warming.

As for a book,I think I'll start here...you might need it for a little balance.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

These articles speak to the underlying politics of the climate research...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16907

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-is-NOT-funded-by-Exxon.htm

If you pretend to be objective, I will too.

Have a good one!