Science – A new NASA-led study shows human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa.
Studies such as this AND the current cost of petroleum are TWO good reasons for promoting large increases in energy conservation.
--Rethinking car size
--Rethinking the increased cost of energy efficient auto designs
--Rethinking the distance between work and home
--Rethinking mass transit options
--Rethinking the Nation's rail system vs highway system for hauling goods
--Rethinking temperatures inside of buldings (why do executives need to wear coats in the summer?)
--Rethinking the cost of improving energy conservation in older as well as new buildings.
The nation also needs to increase the amount spent on energy research and development.
If they would move that warehouse closer to my home then I would no have to drive so far. I guess tother would make up the difference in what I save.
The train cares goods to the places the tracks go. They have pulled up miles of tracks to the rural area. Only will put a train at an grain port where they can load at least 100 cars. Alot of farm grain ports don't have that capacity.
As I have said all along, whether or not we are causing global warming we should do everything we can to cut our pollution simply because it's the right thing to do. Not to mention our energy usage.
Humans ARE causing Global Warming!
"Human-generated climate change made flowers bloom sooner and autumn leaves fall later, turned some polar bears into cannibals and some birds into early breeders, a vast global study reported on Wednesday.
Hundreds of previous studies have noted these specific changes and most suggested a link to so-called anthropogenic global warming, but a new analysis published in the journal Nature correlated these earlier studies with changes in temperature, the study's lead author said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/...
I'm not saying that we are or aren't causing it. I tend to believe we are but I'm a chef I don't know. What I am saying is that we should be taking the necessary steps to cut our green house gases because either way it's good for us and the environment.
Maybe it's time to ketchup?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/c...
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/...
"We know exactly where the added CO2 is coming from, and it most certainly is from human activity (mostly the burning of fossil fuels, but some is from industry and slash-and-burn deforestation for agriculture). Carbon has two stable isotopes (atomic weights), C12 and C13. Plants prefer to use C12 over C13, so the naturally occurring ratio of the two isotopes is skewed toward C12 in plants. All fossil fuels were originally plants, and so if the C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere is changing toward increased concentrations of C12, then the source of the new CO2 must be plants. In addition, since animal respiration isn't enough to skew the C12/C13 ratio and simultaneously affect the concentration of CO2 and oxygen in the atmosphere, the source must be fossil fuels."
"Humans ARE causing Global Warming!
"Human-generated climate change made flowers bloom sooner and autumn leaves fall later, turned some polar bears into cannibals and some birds into early breeders, a vast global study reported on Wednesday."
Well, you'll be happy to know global cooling this year has wiped out the "human-caused global warming."
Of course, this study only went until 2004 and didn't take into account other factors, such as sun intensity. Nor did it make note that other planets exhibit similar warming.
You still trying to fool people into thinking you are Richard Dawkins?
"...generated by industrial and vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide to produce a temperature-boosting greenhouse effect -- and observed biological and physical changes is very strong."
Now, Ricky, you pretend to know about scientific research. Ever heard of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Too many of this "studies" fall for it, just like this one.
libsRfunny :
"Humans ARE causing Global Warming!"
Yes we are. We've been causing change on this earth since Eve took the bite of forbidden fruit and Adam followed. This world is in a decaying mode.
Of course as man thinks he is more intelligent he builds more damaging things. Just look at all things man has invented that can be use for good and instead is abused for profit and evil. Television, movies, radio, magazines, cars, planes,telephones... We use these things to do some good. But a lot of it has been turned to evil. Pornography is now wide spread and can be accessed world wide. Vehicles are used to make war a mass killing machine. Telephones are used to spread lies and gossip...
Yeah humans are causing Global Warming but we can't stop it.
We are living in a fallen world.
"The link between human-caused global warming -- generated by industrial and vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide to produce a temperature-boosting greenhouse effect -- and observed biological and physical changes is very strong.
On a global scale, the correlation is more than 99 percent between the two factors; on a continental scale, she said, the correlation if very likely between 90 and 99 percent."
Even McCain has acknowledged this. Of course he is for it at the moment, but he used to be against it, before he used to deny it before .... Yup.
The denial monkeys are people who dump in their own bath tubs and think it doesn't effect their baths.
It's a good thing Propeller isn't presented in John Water's "Oderama"!!!
"On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies".
Sounds like the cart before the horse ...
An assumption it is happening; now lets go find the evidence.
That last paragraph sure had some weasel-words in it.
Sounds like they are saying that some data didn't fit their agenda so it needs "additional research".
And this little jewel: "Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts."
According to wiki, about 700,000 square kilometers (about the size of Texas) of South America's rain forest alone has been lost since 1970. Added to the rest of deforestation around the world it is hard to understand how the authors dismiss the disappearance of huge amounts of CO2-trapping forest.
Why are enviro-groups all over the world rushing to plant or replant trees as carbon offsets?
The oh-so-careful wording of the article reveals it's bias.
Poor aidenag ... he's having a rough spring with his GW agenda.
It's not easy to claim overheating when you need a coat and sweater.
Coat and Sweater??? Excuse me? it's 89-93 degree's in the Seattle region right now, 30 degree's above our average this time of year. Normally it doesn't get this hot until August in Seattle, and some years we don't see 90 degrees at all... Our rivers are starting to crest, flooding is about to start happening due to the snow we had just 3 weeks back...
Region has never had temp shifts like this before, 29 degree's less than a month ago, now almost hitting 100....
If you believe humans cause Global Warming then you deserve to loose your freedom and pay higher taxes. But don't drag me along with you.
This story is in contrast to NASA's own charts showing steady temperature over the last few years.
Yes it was "arbitrated" meaning political.
Remember we were all going to die of skin cancer because of the ozone and fluorocarbons. Well the fluorocarbons have been out of the atmosphere ever since they took away our freon and alcohol based washer fluid and the ozone hole is bigger than ever. Proof humans played no role in the ozone depletion.
They lied then and they are lying now. Just common sense which many are lacking. But they got your emotions running high! That works!
BTW. It was Al Gore back then and Al Gore screwing your now!
History repeats itself and your still buying it!
Ummmmm i think your missing the point joer4x4. Yes the Ozone hole is still growing, and yes its larger than ever.. But since we banned those chemicals(for most uses, they still are allowed to be used in hundreds of applications), it is growing at a slower rate... Which means those chemicals were contributing a fairly large amount to the depletion of the Ozone...
And it was chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs), NOT fluorocarbons that were causing damage to the Ozone. Fluorocarbons lack the chlorine atom that is so destructive to our atmosphere.
I think logic would dictate that a reduction in CFCs would reduce its size.
I think it is strange that all our pollutants hover over our cities except for CFCs which magically collect around the poles - especially the south pole.
Thinking out loud, could the cold frigid air have something to do with in combination with sunlight? Cold air and angle of the sunlight seem to be a common factor at both poles.
Mars has seasonal changes in its ozone at the poles too. Perhaps we should regulate and tax the inhabitants to set them straight too. I don't think we will have too much trouble convincing them that it is their fault too.
I think they'll get the point:)
It's pretty obvious the world is slowly but surely coming around to the idea that global warming is real.
Because science has been tainted and politicized, especially here in America, we will continue to hear from the skeptics.
But they will quietly fade as more and more environmental disasters continue to pile up.
And one day we will all awaken and wonder what the hell were we thinking!
They should look at HAARP. The project of heating the ionosphere.
The global warming may be the result of "monkeying" with weather patterns.
From the HAARP site:
"The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.
The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun's radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth's atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don't affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either."
Not a member? Sign-up today!
shawnmartinez1960
MacBookForMe
soulkeeper009
HoneyBear911
complicious
pawfoots
bonnieweelass
americasbestcompanies
alamala
TechnologyExpert
Monte G
loupdargent
Bkumm
engineer
mwendt86
Beeboppin71
optimumself
cosmogenium
dimplesing
mmrhe
beerstepup
satansatan
jomarjarmo
kibasilasa
Emmanuel70
Wawat
TrueProgressive
_kam0_
Alexia
RobbieWilliams
cole122386
baldieadelphe
Candida
SunnyDays
ETproductions
juvel
ppsubmit
y_soitenly
avpd85
BillSmythe
memestryker
Raiderwall
BronxBomber
ecotourusa
hurr1
JessicaLaurie
Eagle Eye
2sidestoeverything
kinosnik
ConquistadorForLife
48)
It will be interesting to see the spin of naysayers on this one.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17924124....
"The mystery of the rapidly eroding ice caps on Mars and global warming on Earth may well be connected by the sun (23 August, p 40)."
Oh my ... global warming on Mars. Same symptoms.
The solar cycle explanation has long since been debunked. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-...
Not to the deniers it hasn't. They will be claiming sunspots and solar cycles are to blame for years to come. Even when the ESU and NASA say otherwise..
Leave it to cons, they buy anything the govt says, unless its related to science. Then, and only then, do they scream propaganda...
What you cite is a "letter to the Editor", asking this question but providing NO data with which to attempt to answer it. The letter (which is printed in its entirety in your link) was posted in response to a general article about Mars that was in the August 29, 2003 issue.
Your reference is USELESS and misleading.
Please go home or go to the library.
jordan11 "spin" Seeing as you're a postdoc in climatology, statistics, organic and inorganic chemistry and other degrees too numerous to mention. Faithful follower of brother algore and michaelmoore, I guess I'll just have to believe it. Then again,judging from your other posts, you're still a MF moron.
Let's error on the point it true. Change the growth of the pollution around the world. Not going to happen.
Let's get off the juice of other nations. Anwar, drill off our coasts. New refineries, nuclear reactors etc.
Scrimshaw:
Your post made no grammatical or argumental sense.
Want to try that again? Slowly?
Why waste my time on the slow?
Because... some... of... us... are... slow.
Also, because this is propeller and if you go fast you wind up triple-posting a replying to a comment that has not appeared yet.
Better back off on the medication.