Community | November 05, 2010 | 75 comments

The Advantages of Global Warming. Too Bad it's Fiction

Image
congoboy
More pleasant temperatures for vast majority economic activity and outdoor activity/recreation!
Greater cushion against lower global temp. anomalies (little ice age only -1 or 2 degrees) Increased agricultural productivity & land (more rain, warmth & Co2)
Longer growing seasons for all plant life

Greening of some of the Earth's vast frozen land masses

Increased Co2 absorption rate

Added habitat for wildlife

More bountiful food for animal life

Less food/energy requirements for animal life

Less net global energy requirement for humans

Less deforestation for heating fuel

Less cold related severe weather and death http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_advantages_of_global_warming
  1. groups:
    Community,   Climategate
  2. tags:
    Global Warming
  3.     
    |

75 comments // The Advantages of Global Warming. Too Bad it's Fiction

  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • "less deforestation"

      if anything, deforestation will ACCELERATE
      the vast majority of all major mass-deforestations occurring in the world have very little, if anything, much to do with wood production.
      Forests are clear-cut in order to make way for farmland, for agriculture, to clear the land for cultivation
      much, if not most of the indigenous, pristine forrest that is left remaining in the world is in what used to be formerly inhospitably cold regions of the Northern and Southern continents
      with this land now a prime candidate for agricultural development , the mass-clear-cutting of formerly untouched forests will be greatly increased

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • "less severe weather and death"
      &
      "less net global energy requirements for humans"

      These are both matters open for interpretation.
      with "hot flashes" and "heat waves" becoming not the exception, but the norm, the civilian population, especially in urban metropolitan cities, may very well expend just as much, if not significantly more, energy COOLING their homes and residences, as people used to use WARMING their dwellings

      you might want to look into whether blizzards kill more people than droughts and wildfires
      Most severe weather events, such as hurricanes, occur significantly MORE frequently, and with substantially greater impact, in warmer biomes than they might in colder climes
      This is because much of the weather we know that is classified as "extreme" or "severe" is caused by WARM weather and WARM climates.

      "cold related" severe wether is very rare, and mostly only involved snow and ice, both of which will be nothing more than distant and fading memories, in most inhabited parts of the world, no more than a few decades henceforward.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • "less food/energy requirements for wildlife"

      actually, as a matter of actual facts (i know, facts are not big with climate change deniers, but nevertheless)
      animals, including human beings, which live in cold-weather environments have substantially less food available to them, and so have developed to require far LESS food intake in order to survive, and to survive on far LESS energy, than eve their very closely-related species in warmer-weather climates
      The animals that live in tropical, or subtropical biomes have amongst the highest food intake requirements per energy to survive of the known creatures in any biosphere.

      So warmer temperatures, while resulting in far more bountiful food for species adapted to subsist on very little, would also thereby result in such species evolving to take in much MORE food, and require much MORE energy inorder to live their new lifestyle

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • "Greening of the Earth's frozen land masses"

      The Planet Earth only has TWO land masses that can be said to be "frozen"
      the island of Greenland, and the continent of Antarctica

      While the sea ice floating in the oceans surrounding both land masses is melting due to warmer water temperatures,
      the temperatures at the interiors of both Greenland and Antarctica are getting colder.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • "Added Habitat for Wildlife"?
      Most of the inhabited coastal areas of the world are at, nearly close to, or even below sea level (as is the case with New Orleans, Louisiana)

      Although it is true that the interior of the southern Polar continent of Antarctica is getting colder, as is the case with the island of Greenland
      the see ice surrounding the continent is melting in the ocean due to warmer water temperatures.
      And the Northern Polar Arctic Ice Cap, where there is no dry land, but only floating sea ice, will be entirely disappeared and vanished with the next couple of decades.
      Put together, when all of the floating sea ice in the world's oceans does melt, global sea levels will rise by as much as a foot, on every coastline of every continent on earth.
      This will submerge many inhabited islands, in both the Atlantic and the Pacific entirely under the waters of the sea
      and it will deluge and inundate many, if not most, of the inhabited coastlines of the world.

      So the net result of warming ocean waters will actually be a wholesale DECREASE in the area of land mass available to be populated

      Unless, of course, you were referring to Ocean life forms, in which case, yes, indeed, the melting sea ice will have the result of their being more liquid water in the Earth's oceans.

    • 1 year ago
  • crystalman
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • crystalman:

      wont have to pull out that extra sweater just yet crys. wait a couple of years after these same folks change their mind and decide global cooling is the issue of the day.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • crystalman:

      Thanks to greenhouse gases, the Earth's average temperature is a hospitable 60 degrees F.
      With the temperature control of the Greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59 degrees F (15 degrees C).
      Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0 degrees F (-18 degrees C), a temperature so low that the Earth would be frozen and could not sustain life.

    • 1 year ago
  • MarissaMFer
    • +3
      MarissaMFer  

    • -____- Don't tell me you don't believe in Global Warming... It's naturally occurring.
      And humans are speeding it up. And nothing good will come from Global Warming. We should be doing what we can to protect our planet.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy  
    • MarissaMFer:

      i believe in climate change as its now called, but i question it's seriousness and how much mankind may have influenced it. that said i also agree that as the superior species it is up to humans to be good stewards of the planet.

    • 1 year ago
  • MarissaMFer
    • +3
      MarissaMFer  
    • congoboy:

      What proof would you need to prove the seriousness, though? The more CO2 we emit, the hotter it gets. And our carbon footprint is heavier than anything else on this planet. Of course it urgent.

      Also, when it comes to the use of fossil fuels as power, those products are non renewable. So we'd have to find an alternative eventually anyway. Why not start now? I think someone already said this, "Hope for the best and prepare for the worst". I couldn't have said it better myself.

    • 1 year ago
  • dcrog
    • +2
      dcrog  
    • MarissaMFer:

      You hit the nail on the head Marissa, we do need to do everything possible to protect our planet. Limiting air, water and soil pollution is critical and should be the top priority of all governments, even China and India. To limit the emissions of only capitalist developed nations while allowing waivers to China, India and emerging nations will accomplish nothing. America's and western Europe's emissions are a mere fraction of what they used to be, and the most is coming from Asia now.

      In the early 1600s, climate evidence establishes that the average temps were much higher then, than now. Yes, the sea level was higher then as well. It was a very prolific era for humanity. Times of colder temps have been more difficult for humanity. The SUN is what causes an increase in CO2 and the temperture shits.

      No sane person wants to pollute the planet. Yes, there have been evil and greedy people in charge of corporations and governments (USSR ring a bell?) who have been guilty of much pollution. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      I'm sure members of the Church of Human Caused Global Warming will attack now, but let's try to focus on the facts, not emotion and voodoo science. There are more climate "experts" who do not agree with the Church doctrine than there are those who do.
      But we all know what happens when one's religious beliefs are questioned!

    • 1 year ago
  • Dagum
  • MarissaMFer
  • Dagum
  • MarissaMFer
    • 0
      MarissaMFer  
    • Dagum:

      What are you even talking about? The "science"?

      I'm not gonna pretend to know technicalities. But, I don't see how anyone could argue that CO2 doesn't go into the atmosphere and acts like a greenhouse, where heat from the sun is allowed in, but does not escape. And no one can argue that man made energy does not create more CO2 than is natural.

      So, I don't care to hear your conspiracy theory. You sound ridiculous.

    • 1 year ago
  • Dagum
    • -1
      Dagum  
    • MarissaMFer:

      You sound ridiculous. You literally have not idea about the so called "science" and the debate that surrounds it?

      So you blindly hold a belief. Are you a member of the Church Climatology?

      I am not going to argue religion with you.

      Is the planet warming? No its not right now. its actually been globally cooling since the early 2000's. Does climate change? yes it has been for millions of years.
      Are humans the cause of climate change? No, despite suddenly having the ability to track that weather coupled with egocentric inclinations we are not.

    • 1 year ago
  • MarissaMFer
  • Dagum
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • MarissaMFer:

      co2, it does a planet good! besides plants love it. and i'm all for alternative forms of energy but more for kissing off dependence on countries who hate us than saving the planet although that is also a worthy endeavor.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • MarissaMFer
  • MarissaMFer
  • Marjolein_Brownies
    • 0
      Marjolein_Brownies  
    • MarissaMFer:

      No Global Warming is not natural occurring... the green house effect is. Global Warming is a problem that is capable of being stopped (it just takes a lot of money), and the green house effect can only be reduced. And I do beleve that Global Warming is a problem.... my sumers just keep getting warmer and more and more people here in Holland are complaining about it. We don't take good care of the earth... :(

    • 1 year ago
  • Marjolein_Brownies
    • 0
      Marjolein_Brownies  
    • Dagum:

      Really ask any environmentalist and they would tell you that there is so much wrong with the weather. Perhaps scientists messed up but environmentalist do know what they are talking about when they mention the environment.

    • 1 year ago
  • Marjolein_Brownies
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • Marjolein_Brownies:

      Is Carbon Dioxide a Dangerous Pollutant? The EPA says yes, but I don’t think so. And I recently came across a book arguing that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 may actually benefit the earth’s many life forms.

      Though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared carbon dioxide a dangerous air pollutant, I believe just the opposite. Recently I came across a book that should be required reading for every member of Congress and policymaker in the U.S. It argues that not only are increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 not dangerous to human, animal or plant health, but that they actually benefit earth’s many life forms, counteracting the deleterious effects of real air pollutants (1).

      Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the elixir of life. It is the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues which in turn are the materials out of which animals construct theirs. This knowledge is so well established, in fact, that we humans – and all the rest of the biosphere – are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms.

      Nowadays, however, it seems that when atmospheric CO2 is discussed all we hear are the presumed negative consequences of its increasing concentration. Countless hours and dollars have been spent by organizations of all kinds writing and promoting large reports about it. Yet, nearly all of these endeavors have failed miserably, by not evaluating, or even acknowledging, the real and measurable benefits of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content. As a result, the many important and positive impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment remain underappreciated and largely ignored in the debate over what to do, or not do, about anthropogenic CO2 emissions.http://baconsrebellion.com/2011/03/08/is-carbon-dioxide-a-dangerous-pollutant/

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • dcrog:

      Doing nothing with regards to our Planet’s constantly changing global Climate will result in the extinction of our species just as surely as standing in the middle of an open field, or on the peak of a high mountaintop during an electromagnetic storm will get you struck by a bolt of lightning.

      However, any and all vain attempts to “prevent”, “end”, “stop”, or “reverse” global climate change are misguided and will inevitably ultimately prove to be fruitless and futile. We can no more put an end to or stop climate change than one can outrun a cyclonic tornado twister on foot.

      The only way to survive either an electrical storm or a tornado would be to find shelter, either in a stably constructed building or deep underground.

      Our efforts in regards to Global Climate change should therefore most certainly not be towards the direction of trying in vain to prevent or reverse it, but rather what we should, by all rational reason, be focused on instead are the many varied ways that our civilization can ready and prepare itself for the effects of a constantly changing global climate, as well as how it is that we can best adapt to the more dramatic and drastic shifts in the climate when and where they do occur.

      By far an away the best way to both prepare and to adapt to abrupt shifts in climate patterns would be able to accurately predict, to the best of our ability when and where such events may occur.

      Another highly effective method of preparation involves autonomy and independence.

      If we are unexpectedly cut off from the rest of our global society, we can I’ll afford to still be utterly and wholly dependent on far remote parts of the globe to supply everything from the food we eat and the clothes we wear to the fuel we use to heat our homes. This, in its turn, also incorporates making the places where we live and where we work more hospitable to life and to habitation, which precipitates eliminating contamination and pollution from our air, ground, and water. It also would involve preserving sufficiently substantial biodiversity, both of land animals and terrestrial plants as well ad in the Earth’s Oceans; so as to guarantee that abrupt and drastic shifts in the Planet’s climate do not render our home world a uninhabitable, inhospitable, barren, desolate, and lifeless ball of rock hurtling through the emptiness of the void of space.

      “Human actions and interventions that interfere significantly with the patterns of the natural ecosystems, such as causing the extinctions of hundreds or thousands, even millions of species by destroying the rainforests, may, however, amplify and distort changes that will occur in the natural matrix of life on the planet.”

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

      “Solving” Nature
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/solving-nature/

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • Dagum:

      "The 10 warmest years since 1860 have all been recorded since 1980. with the 1990's the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year.
      In fact the NOAA analysis yielded two results:
      One data set, in use since the late 1990's, found that 2005 was slightly cooler than 1998, with 2005 being 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2004 average, 1998 was 1.12 degrees above that norm.
      It has 2005 at 1.12 degrees above the norm and 1998 at 1.06 degrees above the norm.
      But the report states that "Uncertainties associated with the various factors and methodologies used in data set development make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from 1998."
      Christy said in early January that 2005 tied with 2002 for second place.
      In that measurement of the atmosphere, 2005 "clearly was not the warmest", he said in a telephone interview yesterday.
      The 20th Century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record.
      Since 1980, the Earth has experienced 19 of the 20 hottest years on record, with 2005 and 1998 tied for the hottest, and 2002 and 2003 coming in second and third.
      The other NOAA data set and analysis technique (which will become the primary method used henceforth) puts 2005 slightly warmer than 1998.
      Lost in many of the headlines, however, was the quote from the report's lead researcher, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "We couldn't say with 100 percent certainty that it's warmest year, but i'm reasonably confident that it was."
      Regardless where 2005 ends up, this statement from NOAA puts things in perspective:
      "Nine of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 1995."
      -Statement issued by NOAA

      Article: Conflicting Claims on Global Warming and Why It's All Moot
      Robert Roy Britt
      Date: 01 February 2006
      Time: 03:43 AM ET
      http://www.livescience.com/6990-conflicting-claims-global-warming-moot.html

      Elections
      On Global Warming, No Clear Skies For Most 2012 GOP Contenders
      By MICHAEL SCHERER Thursday, March 24, 2011
      Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/03/24/on-global-warming-no-clear-skies-for-most-2...

      http://swampland.time.com/2011/03/24/on-global-warming-no-clear-skies-for-most-2...
      http://swampland.time.com/2011/03/24/on-global-warming-no-clear-skies-for-most-2012-gop-contenders/

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • congoboy:

      Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the Industrial revolution with Carbon Dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

      Doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could cause the Earth to warm by less 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) or more than 11 degrees C (19.8 degrees F) according to a new study based on more than 2,500 climate model simulations carried out on thousands of personal computers.
      According to the most current models, doubling the present concentration of CO2 raises the temperature by only 3 degrees.

      Because CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for 100 years or more, even an aggressive plan to use energy more efficiently and reduce emissions from power plants and vehicles will not stop warming in its tracks.
      That upward trend is still continuing and will continue for many more years after heat-trapping gases are stabilized and the upward temperature trend levels off.
      Scientists predict that even if we stopped emitting heat-trapping gases immediately, the climate would not stabilize for many decades because the gases will stay there for years or even centuries.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • congoboy:

      While I myself do agree that there can be no doubt as t whether or not Human beings are now contributing to the Warming Trend aspect of Climate Change; I do believe that is to fall prey victim to a ubiquitous logical fallacy of rational reasoning to assume that, merely because a factor happens to be CONTRIBUTING to an any given process, that this then must mean that the aforementioned contributing factor has enough sufficiently substantial influence and sway over the said process in order to then have the capability to put an end to the process to which it contributes.

      “The tombstone of the “Reverse Climate Change” movement will likely read “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc”, meaning “After, Therefore Because of it.” The basic argument goes like this: The Earth’s temperature warms after we emit carbon dioxide. Therefore, the temperature must be warming because we emit the carbon dioxide.”

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

      Just because we may very well be CONTRIBUTING to one aspect (the Warming Trend) of the much larger process of global Climate Change, does NOT, in any way, shape, or form mean that we have the power to STOP Climate Change altogether.

      “Solving” Nature
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/solving-nature/

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • Dagum:

      Supplementary materials for this article are available online. Please click the JASA link at http://pubs.amstat.org.
      The Value of Multiproxy Reconstruction
      of Past Climate
      Bo LI, Douglas W. NY C H K A, and Caspar M. AM M A N N
      http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/Li_et_al_plus_comments_jasa.2010....

      Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity
      to Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain
      S. RUTHERFORD,*,** M. E. MANN , T. J. OSBORN,# R. S. BRADLEY @, K. R. BRIFFA,# M. K. HUGHES &,AND P. D. JONES#*Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode IslandDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia#Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom@Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts—Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts&Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
      (Manuscript received 16 September 2003, in final form 27 September 2004)
      http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/RuthetalJClimate05.pdf

      Rutherford, S., M. E. Mann, T. J. Osborn, K. R. Briffa, P D. Jones, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, 2005: Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain. J. Climate, 18, 2308–2329.
      doi: 10.1175/JCLI3351.1
      Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain
      S. Rutherford**
      Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island
      M. E. Mann
      Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
      T. J. Osborn, K. R. Briffa, and P D. Jones
      Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
      R. S. Bradley
      Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts—Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts
      M. K. Hughes
      Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3351.1

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
    • 0
      littlwarrior  

    • Right accept that the oceans will be a rising and the erratic weather will cause more damage than anything else. Not to mention that if we do not stop what we are doing its just going to get hotter and hotter, the carbon in the atmosphere will keep on bringing up the temp becuase we keep pouring on the carbon and one of two things will happen, the whole planet will overheat or more likely the planet will self correct and then things could get really really really cold.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • MarissaMFer
  • littlwarrior
    • 0
      littlwarrior  
    • congoboy:

      The science is there, its just so politisized that people like to be disagreeable about it. Its not about listning to gore or anyone else, its about aknowleging the evidence and deciding to do something about it. We need to work with people to find cleaner and more efficent energy sources, besides we get rid of our need for oil and suddenly the middle east has zero cash flow and they will be to poor again to be the constant thorn in our side they are today. The only reason most GOP'ers are so anti clean energy is because they all have considerable amounts of money in oil. Look at chenney and haliburton, bush and his investments in oil, they are watching out for their own, not for the rest of us. As Glenn Beck would say follow the money.

    • 1 year ago
  • Sparky2U
  • MarissaMFer
  • Varex_Sythe
  • MarissaMFer
  • pakazak
  • congoboy
    • -1
      congoboy  
    • littlwarrior:

      no doubt, and most would agree on both the left and the right that we need to be better stewards of the earth. but this global warming thing is still more questions than answers. there is little doubt that the earth is going through some kind of climate change. but is it cyclical? how much influence does mankind really have? there is strong science doubting the seriousness of it as well as mans influence. notice how when the global warming label didnt hold up under scientific scrutiny that it magically changed to climate change, as ive said before...beware of prohets seeking profits

    • 1 year ago
  • dcrog
    • +1
      dcrog  
    • MarissaMFer:

      Well, Algore enabled Current to a certain extent; don't you know he created the internets?!?!? D'ya ever see him bounch down the stairs of his private jet when he flys around talking about his personal church of global warming? Algore spews more greenhouse gas when he moves his lips and rearend than his jet ever could.

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • MarissaMFer
    • 0
      MarissaMFer  
    • dcrog:

      Ha. I honestly don't know dude. I was born during the Clinton administration. I only know what I've been told and I was practically a baby. I know Al Gore based on his contributions to Current TV and his campaign for Global Warming. And I appreciate that.

    • 1 year ago
  • dcrog
    • 0
      dcrog  
    • littlwarrior:

      If your religion is correct, how do you explain the change from a lush jungle in Iraq 1000s of years ago, to its current state now? Or, how about the ice caps on Mars shrinking since Hubble first peered at them in the 80s? I guess humanity was burning carbon based stuff on Mars, and we also managed to destroy the once lush valley in Iraq! Global warming is at best cyclical and natural, and at worst, a Leftist ploy to damage the 1st world economies.

    • 1 year ago
  • MarissaMFer
  • littlwarrior
    • 0
      littlwarrior  
    • congoboy:

      Well thats the thing as the earth warms it will start doing things to cool itself the earth does cycle what climate change really is is man is just speeding up the process. The process itself is natural, its the rate that it is happening that is not natural and the last time it happened to fast we got an ice age and I dont handle the cold well, therefore something must be done. That and of course we will start loosing growing space and time and there is not enough food to go around as it is now another population boom then an ice age things are going to get bad fast.

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
  • addie340
    • 0
      addie340  
    • congoboy:

      You mean Al Gore don't you, if it wasn't for making millions of dollars off this crap Al would be gone. He would be off chasing the next dollar, Global Cooling, we are freezing the polar bears to death. Please send millions to Al Gore I'll fight the cause.

    • 1 year ago
  • tverdell
  • tverdell
  • MarissaMFer
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • congoboy
  • Marjolein_Brownies
  • congoboy
    • 0
      congoboy  
    • Marjolein_Brownies:

      i believe god gave dominion of the world and its creatures to mankind, not sure if he ever said take care of the earth although i agree we should be good stewards. the trees, what else are we to wipe our asses with?

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • congoboy:

      "...And the Lord Said : 'Go Forth and Be Fruitful and Multiply and Replenish the Earth and Subdue It. And Have Dominion Over the Fish of the Sea, and the Fowl of the Air, and Every Living Thing That Moves'..."
      "...And the Lord Said: 'Behold, I Give Unto Thee the Powers to Reason, and to Think, and to Imagine'..."
      -Book Of Bereshit [Genesis], Pentateuch, Torah, Old Testament

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • congoboy:

      The idea of the phenomenon known as climate change first gained the world’s attention in the early 1980’s, with the announcement, by the respectable climatologists of the time, of the phenomenon that came to be called “Global Warming”.
      Only since then, in any real sense, has the change that has been occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere and environment been expanded beyond the strict definition of “Global Warming”, to become the current larger, and much less stringent definition of “climate change”.
      Within half a decade, it seemed as if almost every studier of any aspect of the Earth’s environment suddenly became a climatologist. And by the dawn of the new millennium, in 2001, Environmentalism had become overwhelmingly synonymous with advocacy for “Global Warming”.

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • littlwarrior:

      An example of an abrupt Climate Change event is the Younger Dryas (~12,000 years ago); a period of abrupt cooling that interrupted a general warming trend as Earth emerged from the Last Ice Age.
      During the Younger Dryas period, average summertime temperatures in New England cooled by about 5-7 degrees F (3-4 degrees C)

      One of the largest, fastest episodes of Climate Change in the geologic record is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, 55 Million years ago.
      Within about 30,000 years, the globe warmed by 5 to 10 degrees celsius, causing a huge disruption of plant and animal life.
      Then quite abruptly and for a relatively short period of time-- about 100 years-- the entire globe chilled down again, by almost 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (6 Centigrade).

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image
    • congoboy:

      It is well-documented and widely known that the currently observed warming trend began around 1800, at the end of a 500-year period known as the “Little Ice Age”, which lasted from 1300-1800 AD, and during which lakes and rivers in Europe froze over.
      Before that, beginning in about 1300, the world went through what has come to be known as a Little Ice Age, or “Mini-Ice Age”. During the period of unusual; but, as has been learned since, not entirely unnatural; cold, crops failed, and rivers that had once been major commerce routes froze over in winter. Famine and disease swept over the old world; including, beginning in around 1347, the Bubonic Plague, or Black Death, the last reported outbreak of which was recorded in around 1700.
      The Little Ice Age lasted until about 1800; which, not coincidentally, are when temperatures began rising at their current rate.
      This, in turn, followed a 300-year span called the “Medieval Warm Period”, when temperatures throughout the globe were significantly higher than they are today, as is attested to by the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.
      However, with those two notable exceptions, the planet’s global climate has been on an overall warming trend for the past 14,000 years, since towards the end of the last Great Ice Age 10,000 years ago, and the current trend of climate change has been continuous ever since that time.

      We are currently in the grips of a larger Great Ice Age that began 2-3 million years ago. This larger epoch has consisted of a pattern of fairly regular glacial advances and retreats.
      As we can see from the ice core data mentioned above, which constitutes a record for the past 400,000 years; this pattern repeats roughly once every 100,000 years, and consists of 90-100,000 years of heavy glaciations, called an Ice Age, followed by a warming trend, and then a period of approximately 10-14,000 years of glacial retreat known as an interglacial; and then another glaciations.

      However, and probably most unsettling, is that the ice core records also show that the changes in climate from Interglacial Period to Ice Age, and that from Ice Age to warmer period, have each been both rapid, and abrupt, perhaps taking only a matter of years, or even months to occur. When the change reaches its apex, it produces an abrupt shift in global climate patterns, which leads to a catastrophic change in the global climate and on the planet Earth. The shifts result in mass-extinctions, of possibly hundreds, or even thousands of species, such as the Wooly Mammoth. However, the natural world adjusts and adapts and finds ways to continue the journey of life on this planet. As it has after every change, in a climate that has been in constant change, since life began on this planet 3-4 Billion years ago.
      And the critical thing, in my opinion, is this. The last shift occurred a little more than 12,000 years ago; and we, in this next century, may very be due, or perhaps even overdue, for another.

      Why I Don’t Hug Trees
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/introduction/

    • 1 year ago
  • pakazak
  • chloroplasts
  • tommic
    • +4
      tommic  

    • If you were any wackier you'd need to be commited. There is no positives that will come from climate change or peak oil. Hate to be the doomsayer but too many deniers will hold things up long enough, couple that with the explosive economies of China and India . More fossil fuels burnt, demand outstrips supply prices rise, nothing gets done on climate change and before you know it two problem will have come to fruition at about the same time. Oil at four times the price and an climate enviornment that has gone past the tipping point and things just get worse. Can you see a billion refugees around the world as a result? Probably not, but I do..

    • 1 year ago
  • congoboy
  • Sparky2U
  • Varex_Sythe
  • congoboy
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • congoboy:

      Actually, one mans science is less another mans junk science and more another mans crusade to discredit regardless of facts. I have a question stemming from my curiosity though, how do you think the money should be spent?

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos