Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, this is such not good news. Best quote: “It turns out that global warming critics were right when they said that global climate models did not do a good job at predicting climate change,†Robock said. “But what has been wrong recently is that the climate is changing even faster than the models said. In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models predicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously predicted.†Yeah, that's just great. Let's keep ignoring the issue for another ten years, maybe it will go away. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21423872/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21 423872/</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn OH, and while we are at it, it appears that global warming may be destroying the fall colors in New England. Oh well. Keep driving that SUV: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21417255/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21 417255/</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, since Al Gore doesn't walk the talk 100% of the time let's just ignore it all.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>OH, and while we are at it, it appears that global warming may be destroying the fall colors in New England. Oh well. Keep driving that SUV:<<< Not to deny that we have a problem, one thing really bothers me about all the doom and gloom statements like the one above. I live in New England and I don't remember seeing the colors brighter then they are this year. I'm all in favor of doing something to help the environment but when what is reported contradicts reality it is hard to get behind the cause and feel that there is credibility in every claim. Which one do you believe what you hear or what you see? I'm inclined to go with what is right in front of me.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I live in New England and I don't remember seeing the colors brighter then they are this year." That's not what the botanists have to say. "Which one do you believe what you hear or what you see?" I'm inclined to go with what the scientists have to say on it.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost The difference between what I see and what they say is that I am not influenced by a grant from someone trying to prove otherwise. As I said, I am not arguing that we have a problem, what I'm saying is that when you are told something that is the opposite of what you actually witness then credibility comes into question. I am not prepared to believe everything just because someone had a computer and piles of money behind him. I will believe what I see.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy "I live in New England and I don't remember seeing the colors brighter then they are this year." Have you recorded your observations from year to year to confirm your memory? The human memory is really not capable of noticing such imperceptible changes that occur over a period of years. Its just not within our brain's grasp to do these sorts of things. Unless you record information over a period of years and compare the data, like a scientist would do, you probably wouldn't notice the difference.
Originally Posted By DAR You know what I think of when I see the fall colors here in the Midwest? It's time to bust out the old leaf blower.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It doesn't really matter if the colors in New England are brighter or duller than usual, or if it's warmer in NY this October than usual (it is). Localized short-term events like this mean next to nothing. What matters is long-term trends globe-wide.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I went to a lecture by a long-time climatologist at our regional university the other night. It was a meeting of the Ice Age Floods Institute, the group that is helping to establish the Channeled Scablands as a national scenic area. Anyway, this scientist spoke on ice ages, particularly on factors which bring them on and some of the time elements involved. He is completely in accord with the theory of global warming, yet he says he believes that there is a chance that half or more of the reason for the currently observed increases in temperature is not man-made but represents some of the typically experienced changes which have been seen to accompany the onset of previous ice ages. Most people envision an ice age as something which slowly evolves over millenia, with gradually cooling temperatures finally turning into winterlike conditions worldwide over thousands of years. Not so, he showed us through a series of graphs, charts and other measurements which show that past ice ages have actually come about rather quickly, and (this is the relevant part if anyone was starting to nod off) have always been preceded by a marked increase in temperatures first. So, to summarize, every measurable ice age has been preceded by a rather marked spike in global temperatures over several decades, followed by a sudden cooling which can rapidly turn the earth much colder over just a handful of decades. So, his contention is that there is every possibility that waht we are seeing may be a partly man-caused event, but equally a pre-ice age series of conditions that are supported by evidence from past ice ages. And, an ice age is most certainly due, based on geological records of when they have come and gone. Also - the sort of temperate weather we have been accustomed to is the exception. Ice Ages are very long periods of time interrupted only briefly by temperate periods of 8-12 thousand years, such as we are now in. We're due for another ice age and the current warm-up just might be a sign that it's coming within the next several decades. Interesting, huh?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's an interesting "maybe," but if even half the current warm-up is man-made, that would be the first time ever in history that it has been (since it took the industrial age to bring greenhouse gases at this level), and is disrupting the natural cycle of heating and cooling. Also, climate change is a problem not just for warmer temperatures. We are also disrupting habitats (species are dying out faster than ever recorded, though that's partly due to habitat loss), endangering fresh drinking water supply, etc.
Originally Posted By DAR Again I must ask people, would any of you have give, up all the modern conveiences(sp) we have in the last 100 hundred years. Air travel, the automobile, mass production to make the earth better. Like most people I want a cleaner planet, but I wouldn't trade what we have for it.
Originally Posted By jonvn What you want to do is find a way to have those things and still have a clean planet. Getting off fossil fuels is the immediate first thing we need to do. Alternative sources of energy have to be developed. You can have cars that run on electricity and not gasoline, for example.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'll say again I think we need a Manhattan Project/NASA moon landing-level project to develop renewable fuels. Give it THAT level of importance and devote literally the best minds in the country to solving it. We developed an atom bomb with a few years; landed a man on the moon in less than 10. We can do this, but it takes a level of focus we haven't been giving it, and lavish funding. I believe we'll end up saving far more in the long run, greatly improve our economy, reduce the importance of the Middle East and all its associated problems, and at least partially reverse global warming.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> We can do this, but it takes a level of focus we haven't been giving it, and lavish funding. << I agree. This is the kind of thing each of the people running for president ought to be focusing on and discussing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There? Did you see what I did right there? That was me not holding my breath.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 The scientists at the Morton Arboretum here in the western suburbs of Chicago said the plummage is as pronounced as ever - but about 4 - 6 days behind schedule. I didn't realize it was that exact ? Again, I believe global warming is an issue - but I also believe in some things people are looking for any sliver to try and highlight it - even if it really is always applicable. There are enough reasons to see it exists - I don't think if the amount of ice on the polar ice cap change isn;t enough - will anyone be won over when someone says the trees in an area are having color issues - and some that live in the area see that's likely not true across the board.
