Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?

There is no question that greater energy in a system will lead to greater action within a system, though how that energy is expressed in action may have all sorts of results.I am not dismissing that with greater energy in the system, storms can become more numerous and the bad ones more frequent. The point I am trying to get at is the rush to judge each and every storm which comes out now as signs of that increase due to GW, and so become a talking point for environmental policy?It would seem fair to say that hey if you don't like bigger storms, we might want to look at developing tech which will reduce our contribution to rising energy in the system. But that is different than saying, Katrina shows we need to do something NOW!!! Sign Kyoto!You posted an article on the growing number of severe hurricanes. Yet was what you posted credible in the way it is being used? I will also later use quotes from a CNN article to contrast with the WP one you gave, notice that there is a difference. That's a political statement, and one which mixes science with an outright ad hominem or guilt by association fallacy. It is also shifting the goal posts. I don't think there are many scientists that would disagree that sea temps will effect storms, the question are: if the warming is generally related to GHGs and if the worse storms are intrinsically part/due to that warming of which we CAN control.Look back at the "smoking gun" research that I think does show (if the data supporting the models was valid) what the primary forcing agents are. The appearance given is that the recent upsweep in temps is primarily the result of a degradation of aerosols combined with solar radiation.Yes the general global temp is climbing due to growing GHG levels, but what we have experienced may have been much the same due to the other forcings had the levels stayed the same.And on a regional level there will be differences (that's where people mention cooling in parts despite a general global warming). The caribean for instance (and that is where Katrina was) has experienced the least increase. Thus Katrina is unlikely to be showing us anything about GW effects. I might also add that the "effects" of Katrina were manmade in a totally separate sense. If the levees had held, and proper action taken by authorities, we would not have seen the devastation we did.You see where I am going with this?The Post acts as if the study is winning over the few remaining stragglers (I guess conservatives wanting to pollute), yet in the CNN article there remain some points to be said. This is not to mention we have very very little historical data beyond that for trends in storm systems which may not be linked to temps at all!But here is the counter from an author of the paper... Heheheh... that's moving beyond science and into rhetoric. That there is an increase over a period is pretty well useless, when the point is before that the data is less accurate and drops to essentially nothing outside of our last century.We know temps were dipping in the 40s to 70s. Was there a lull in activity or not? And if there was could the return to increasing temps have triggered an action which will eventually settle?It is also important to note that there is a difference between storm and hurricane, what does the data show? So though even I would agree that increasing temps could generate more storms, that is in fact not happening. Thus advocates who thought that was possible should now be said to be shown wrong? Or do we rightfully say, we simply have no data for that effect at this time? How do we use this data?Well what the data does suggest is that while there may be no increase in storm formation, those that do form have increased in intensity. Does that then prove advocates right?How does a mixed bag of results work for the advocate?And what exactly was the increase in strong storms? Is that a "substantial" increase, especially given that in the 70s data we were likely to undercount? As an environmental activist I can see that it would seem so, but as a scientist wanting data that doesn't seem much to go on at all.That of course does not mean it does not lead to some proper conclusions which have practical value... But is THIS the proper conclusion?... My eyebrows shoot up, don't yours? And it really pisses me off because I do not like pollution and I want sound environmental policies, yet comments like this end up pushing me into agreeing with people I generally do not like, who say this... The irony here is enormous. One wonders if and why Inhofe supported Bush attacking Iraq, with such a sound scientific scepticism as it impacts policy.Heheheh... I suppose this is where I find myself back in the center. I could not stand the abuse of science by conservatives to boost military policy, and I cannot stand to see it abused by liberals to boost environmental policy.Or am I missing something?This message has been edited by holmes, 09-17-2005 05:38 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, that is specifically referring to the non-political definition, "with a small 'c'," to mean skeptical, moderate, cautious: a conservative estimate. He was talking about scientific critics being conservative in there association of {data\observation} with {theory\hypothesis}. But this is not saying that, it is saying that Katrina is part of an ongoing trend towards bigger storms (not necessarily more, btw), and that the actual measured rise in ocean temperature also fits the models for larger storms when the ocean temperature is higher. So now I need to quote the entire article for you in addition to providing the link so that you can read the rest? Of course I took the more salient points to highlight them. I also am cognizant that there is disagreement among scientists and fully expect others to be aware of that as well. I shouldn't need to say "but some scientists disagree" unless I am implying otherwise, and that is not the case.Certainly there were parts of the article that I thought were irrelevant at best ... Yes, I thought it was totally inappropriate for the article to include this kind of thing in a discussion of the scientific paper, and why I quoted none of this political pandering. So even though there is a clear trend it is meaningless because se don't have a long enough period of data? Guess we better wait to send aid to New Orleans until we have more data, it's only a couple of weeks now, how do we know it is not just a short term trend?You can't just throw your hands up when you run out of data and walk away, you look at what you have and see what can reasonably be used.We do have extensive data on ocean temperatures, albeit not all of it in the deep ocean or extensive far from land, but in the areas of more complete records we can show temperatures rising over time from early records. We also have a pretty good idea of the ocean {current\underwater weather} system now (more on that later) that models the whole {heat\energy} transportation system. Then there is the association between the recorded storms with the current rise in temperature.If we do know that increased water temperature makes existing storms bigger, and we do know that the temperature of the ocean has actually increased, and we do know that our behavior has resulted in an increased retention of energy in the earth system, it does add up to "warming" (increased energy retention) = more energy available = bigger storms.The question, to me, is how do we {invalidate\test} this? oo oo Strawman? That is not what was stated, but that increased temps add energy to the storms making them bigger, not necessarily more numerous. A larger storm is also more likely to last longer, cover more area, and in the process sweep up smaller systems that would have turned into independent storms if it had been smaller, and thus easily result in fewer but larger storms. A boiling pot of water starts with many local hot-spots forming bubbles and rising currents (buddhist meditation on the 10 stages of boiling water), when the pot reaches full boil there is no differentiation between local and pot-wide behavior. Of course, and this is also why you can have more, larger winter storms, such as struck Boston when they were having the global warming conference. This is why "warming" is such a bad choice in terminology. It's increased energy retention. Again Katrina is not data on it's own, it is a data point in a string of data that region by region show increased energy in the storms. Again, "warming" is a bad term. The {total earth energy} is an equilibrium system that is in flux, both short term (daily, annually) and long term (geologically), and has been throughout the existence of the earth.What we do know is that GHGs increase the amount of energy that is retained in the system - we've tested it, we've measured it, we've confirmed it - and that GHGs therefore contribute to an elevated equilibrium state over what would exist without them.There has been a lot of scientific discussion on whether the amount of human contribution is significant over a long term natural trend, whether that trend was toward a cooler earth (entering an ice age scenario, one that has been prevented - so far - by our inadvertent unconscious intervention) or towards a warmer earth (similar to some past ages, helped along by our inadvertent unconscious intervention, but not out of the realms of past experience).The question to me is not whether the result is a measurable change in the equilibrium level of the earth, but whether we like the result: it is a purely human question as the rest of the world has already "been there, done that, bought the T-shirt" (and will survive as a shift in populations over time reaches eco-equilibriums between species and niches).The question is do we want hotter summers, bigger storms on beaches where we like to live and play, higher water in places we like to live and changing ecology in places were we live around the world? Do we want a shift in the equilibrium to a higher level of energy retention?In the big long-term picture it is not necessarily a bad thing for life on earth, it just may not be that good for some species, or certain populations of some species, human included.There is also a question that has not been broached yet on this thread of threshold levels and related "sudden" (geological) changes to large scale {weather\current} patterns (here using "current" as a ~equivalent to weather in water systems rather than air).There is some indication that changes to "ice ages" occurred relatively rapidly, as though some threshold had been reached that forced a significant change to the pattern of behavior of weather and currents. Abrupt Climate Change - Are We on the Brink of a New Little Ice Age? (click) There is indication that we may be near one such event: the loss of the "Great Ocean Conveyor" due to warmer fresher water in the area of the cold sink, blocking it. We could actually kick off an ice age with our slight shift in the energy equilibrium. Note that ice ages are not marked by global reductions in temperature but by stratification of temperature regions such that what is experienced in {Minnisota\Siberia} is spread to all areas at those latitudes, while the equatorial areas can actually be warmer.Again, the question is not whether (or not) this has ever happened before or whether (or not) life will continue to adapt to the changing environments, but whether specific populations of a specific species that have the ability to reduce their effect on the system (or even to begin to control it in a "desired" manner) will appreciate the changes. I agree that abuse of data is wrong. But I also suggest that there is valid data that should make rational people very concerned about what the ultimate result will be, and that denial of this evidence is no different than denial of evidence in any other science (like, say, evolution). I guess it just depends on what kind of world you want to live in.The shortsighted view is that we can just increase our use of energy to maintain pockets of human habitable ecosystems that are not in equilibrium with the environment around them.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I noticed that Holmes quoted Dr. Landsea (an easily remembered name) on hurricanes, global warming, and that political debate that's ever present in the background. Landsea quit the IPCC last January because of what he viewed as distortion of his specialty (hurricanes and global warming) for political purposes.Letter of explanation:
’Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - WikipediaYeah, I understand that now there are two recent papers that could turn the climate community around, we'll wait and see. But even if it does, I think this is interesting from a political standpoint.

quote:

---

There is indication that we may be near one such event: the loss of the "Great Ocean Conveyor" due to warmer fresher water in the area of the cold sink, blocking it. We could actually kick off an ice age with our slight shift in the energy equilibrium.

---

I don't that's considered a very credible position.

quote:

---

Science, Vol 304, Issue 5669, 400-402 , 16 April 2004

​

Perspectives

​

OCEAN SCIENCE:
Global Warming and the Next Ice Age
Andrew J. Weaver and Claude Hillaire-Marcel

​

There is a popular notion in the media that human-induced global warming will result in the onset of a new ice age. In their Perspective, Weaver and Hillaire-Marcel refute this view, explaining that global warming is unlikely to dramatically alter the North Atlantic ocean circulation. They also emphasize that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide lead to summer temperatures that do not allow glacier formation and growth.

​

A. J. Weaver is at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P6, Canada. E-mail: weaver@uvic.ca C. Hillaire-Marcel is at GEOTOP, Université du Québec Montréal, C.P. 8888, Montreal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada

---

You can, of course, chose who to believe and who not to believe.What I quoted was not "popular media" but is from the WHOI's (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), Ocean and Climate Change Institute website."By Terrence Joyce, Senior Scientist, Physical Oceanography and
Lloyd Keigwin, Senior Scientist, Geology & Geophysics"Hardly rabid sensationalist journalists.I agree that the jury is still out on this hypothesis (and likely will be until such a seminal event occurs?).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

I agree that the jury is still out on this hypothesis (and likely will be until such a seminal event occurs?).

---

I plan on keeping an eye on it.

Political conservatives also use a small c. Look up the definition of conservative. I will grant that this could swing either direction but it appeared sort of a double entendre to me, and even if not meant by schmidt chosen for quote for that meaning by the Post author. That was of course the least important point. You seem to have missed the entire point of the question I was raising. Certain environmentalists and politicians have been. My question is if such advocates have been overreaching in order support policy. I wasn't asking if what you quoted was credible in the way you quoted it. Since I did read the entire article, I was asking (and I admit it could have been more clearly worded) if the study (esp its reslts) which was the main focus of the article you posted a link about and quoted being used in a credible way by the science, political, and public communities? Well this hits upon two different things, and all supporting the thrust of my point. A politician was very much pandering and the Post helped it along. Remember until you altered it my subthread title was who is stirring the pot, temps or advocates? I am trying to get at the fact that environmental data is being used incorrectly. RAZD, that is the most asinine and fallacious statement I haver ever seen you make. Not only are the two completely incomparable (I'm still trying to figure out where the analogy is), it is simply an emotional appeal or perhaps guilt by association.I am talkin about science, not rescue efforts. Yes, a short term trend of geological activity is relatively meaningless. Why on earth would that surprise you? In any case I already had a ref to the "problem" of global cooling. If you had read that you would have seen that it was a short term trend of cooling that was misdiagnosed as something greater than it was. The system is intricate. Did you even read my posts which compared the very latest models which are the "smoking gun" of GW, with temps? The reason I found this convincing (though still trying to find where they got some data) was that it finally involved other forcings.If you looked at the graphs it appeared that aerosols and solar irradiation were the ones truly "forcing" the trends of greatest temp change. The GHGs produced steady and slow climb, with the other forcings making it dip globally cooler to vastly hotter. Thus the trend in raising sea temps and storm strength could best be attributed to those factors in the recent past (including now).That is also to ignore other possible causes of sea temp rising (including manmade pollution effects as we dump quite a bit of energy into the sea directly). That's funny but I don't remember saying that was what was stated in your article. I was addressing one of the common "scare" tactics related to GW. There have definitely been people saying more storms will be produced in general. That's part of climate variability and why people were in fact looking for that statistic. This has already been discussed and agreed to upthread. And only supports what I have been arguing/asking regarding this subject. There is a popular and political aspect about this which has stolen and effects the science. Lets talk about the new ice age, no lets talk about warming, no lets talk about climate change. In any case lets talk about something in some overly dramatic terms beyond what the science is suggesting. ??? Not only has this been discussed I have already posted material, at least I thought I did, shooting down the new "Ice Age" concept based on shutting down the "conveyor". You can quote who you want, but show the data and models. This concept is pretty well roundly dismissed at this point in time.I did see an interesting idea on a discovery channel show where someone believes that a certain amount of warming will result in such sudden release of currently trapped gases that the air in great stretches will be poisonous. It was even suggested that that was part of one extinction event. I agree that denial of evidence is incorrect, but pretending science and data is there which is not is also absurd. How long has GW theory been around, and how long have people believed that the data was there, and how long has the data actually been there with decent enough models to make the predictions which should cause concern regarding "ultimate" results?This seems to be the latest "cause" which happens to have gotten some recent kind of close to what the advocates were saying, scientific support. Isn't the equally shortsighted view that we know exactly what we can do to start minimizing effects, especially as some of this will include shifting resources to other forms of energy production which may also have their own effects?I think one irony here is that nuclear was an answer to GHG energy production until rampant environmentalist fears pulled the plug on that. So we had continued and expanded use of GHGs, rather than largescale replacement. Now nuclear looks good all over again, except of course political fears make us not want to allow emerging nations to have nuclear power.In the end even windfarms and solar panels (or tidal turbines) may have an effect on climate. The answer really is we will always effect the environment, especially when we are producing chemical and energy output and are growing in number all the time.Thus we need to get better at modelling systems, so as to understand potential effects, and demonstrate real solutions. The knee jerk approach has not been working so far.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

heh. I read it as completely innocent of political implication. Perceptions. I thought you were criticising the article. Politics is a spectrum from insane to deluded quickly passing through reasonable to reach the extremes. This goes back to your {Public Information Bureau} to seperate fact from fiction. Here is another article on the study:
Forbes.com: Study Links Hurricanes to Global Warming (click)
Same kind of comments from Landsea in this article, which downplays the data, imho, rather than sensationalize or politicise it.I found the comment from Landsea on "the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast" to be totally bizarre in relating this to global warming effects, and I'm still trying to figure out how doubling (say) the numbers of people on the coast would affect global warming more than their living anywhere else.I also included the remarks on Katrina because the mirrored my own . Heh. figured that would get a rise out of you. Overstatment for the purpose of making a point.The point being that to me the question is NOT whether {behavior-this\behavior-that\behavior-the-other} is causing "global warming" but whether certain long term trends that we see in {weather\climate\ocean current} are desirable from out species survival aspect, and IF NOT then what can we do about it (including reducing anything we do that contributes to {bad things are going to happen}).Do we want higher sea levels, waarmer seas, more energetic storms, changing climate and weather patterns (droughts\deluges in different places), hotter summers (that link was just for you btw), more stormy winters?Do we want possible disruption of ocean currents, possible stratification of weather patterns by latitude and the like?If not, then what are we prepared to do about it. I don't worry that the pattern is man-made, I worry that it is happening, and that the human species will suffer as a result. To address the issue of {man-made\induced} increase tp the energy equilibrium level, there are a lot of hidden aspects that are very difficult to identifiy let alone quantify. For instance the predominant use of airconditioners these days compared to 50 years ago coupled with the population in the US doubling in that time period: higher usage by a larger population. With normal operation the only "emissions" of the systems are (slightly) increased exhaust from power plants and (measurable) increased air temperature on the outside of the buildings (more heat is produced outside than is removed inside). Same with refrigeration systems increased usages, more office buildings built as tall heat innefficient towers that are heated 24/7 even though only used 8/5, paving areas with blacktop that used to be grass or forest ... and dumping pollution into the sea ... the amount of "latent heat" or energy that is distributed by our society is really orders of magnetude higher than any natural system in these same areas. GHGs are just the cap that hold in this increase in available energy, they don't generate it themselves.BUT. This would not be considered a problem if the observed trends in global {weather\climate} were not in a direction that people don't like or think is good for our long term survival: the issue is the long term trends, and then what we can do about it. IF one thing we can do is reduce out profligate ways and that reduces the effects or prolongs the periods between {good environment} and {not so good environment} then it is in our very species selfish self interest to do so. It is hard to seperate out just the effect of population increase in the same periods. There is no experimental control system? Let's talk about observed trends in climate and weather and whether we would like to see them continue or change. Let's talk about the possibility of changing the global {climate\weather} intentionally to suit us better (terraforming) and look at what we could do on some other planet (mars? the moon?) in the same manner. Proactive. Being one who lives at near sea-level in the Northeast\New England area now, I will watch it anyway. Do a google on {deep sea frozen methane} or read
Coastal and Marine Hazards and Resources Program | U.S. Geological Survey An "eruption" of methane could easily dwarf the production of all the cows in the world.Using methane could also replace oil in the US with little infrastructure change other than conversion to "natural gas" -- it's a mixed bag. I don't recall nuclear energy being touted as an answer to aerosols so much as a source of energy that didn't produce soot and smelly gases.To me fission technology is {inadequate} as it produces more problems than it solves. But I also think that we need to go through fission development to get to workable fussion technology. That needs to be the goal, not half way there. So we need to look at making positive effects rather than just taking whatever comes along eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I believe what he is trying to say is that Global warming would not be quite as noticable if were not for the increase in human populations and their living on the coast. If there was only a small population living on the coast, much of the effects of GW would be hard to see. People only notice when their houses get washed away, not when say, a hurricane strikes an unpopulated coast. The economic and human cost makes the effects more noticable.At least that is how I read it. I don't agree with his implications of a negligable shift in climate, though. *shrug*

just because nobody is there doesn't mean the tree doesn't fall in the forest. whether it makes a sound or not, it fall, and whether the people are there or not it is the same effect, so it either exists or doesn't independent of the population distribution.

Well, he agrees with you as far as I can tell from his statement. It is independent of population.He is saying that the GW effect is negligable whether poeple are there or not, it just happens that we notice when people are affected.Trees fall but we only worry about it when one falls on our house.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 09-18-2005 09:53 PM

I can't tell you what he actually meant, but I can explain how I read it which may be accurate since my geo background was similar.As you had already suggested, this is about how humans will experience the changes which climate change will bring. Landsea appears to be suggesting what many geo people have been discussing which is populations moving into and growing in "risky" areas. Nature is wild and there is a natural variability, regardless of GW. Yet humans are increasingly flocking to areas where nature can do serious damage. Thus more damage is being done, especially when the variability is for something stronger.In this way human behavior, combined with natural variability is going to have humans facing greater "effects" than anything GW will be causing them to suffer. This is from one of the co-authors. That ought to be instantly recognizable as "famous last words" within science. Although I certainly do agree that sea temps will effect storm energy and so strength, and GHGs are apparently (still looking to corroborate forcing data from the "smoking gun" report) raising global temps which can raise sea temps, she appears to be blatantly ignoring other forcing possibilities and mechanisms.There may be upper limits, there may be lower limits to what can be added, as there may be additional atmospheric and oceanic mechanisms for getting rid of energy. This was indeed suggested by something which I had not seen in either of the other articles on the study, and which you did not include in the quote. I think the point is quite important so here it is... In a way I will disagree with Landsea, there very well could be a reason for no change in peak winds. That itself may be intriguing, if there are no increases in numbers of storms, and no greater devastation by the top storms, but all storms that do exist will more likely be toward the top. Why not? And that certainly would have some implications on how we might view this.In any case, the non increase in peak winds is something of interest and a challenge to the researcher above who seems to like to theorize beyond data when she can't think of what else might be going on. I have yet to see any data which suggests our species will run into an extinction scenario. Discomfort and personal hardships, that's a possibility. Doomsday? No. But it won't be global, it will be regional in effect. I guess this means that as weather changes, people will have to move to new locations that fit what they like?As far as sea levels go, the Netherlands has been facing that challenge for centuries, and with great success over the last few decades. Unless there is a waterworld scenario, which can't happen, I'm not that concerned. One common feature of human existence is bitching about the weather. The above comment is not true, or at least not accurate. People are increasingly worried about gays and gay marriage, yet that does not mean anything bad will happen to the world because of it, specifically along the lines of longterm survival.People are suffering more as they increasingly live in risk areas, which is what i believe Landsea was addressing, without paying heed to what they must do to protect themselves adequately. The horrible devastation of the indonesian tsunami, points up that nature can pack a punch without anything man made as a cause, and that humans need to prepare for THOSE eventualities. Hey, I agree. The models are still not accurate. But if you are going to dismiss it then you are dismissing the only "smoking gun" that GW has. This was the best case that could be presented and it does show other forcings have greater effects, only more temporary in nature.And indeed its interesting that the time of increase in growing global temps has coincided directly with the massive increase in industrialization in China (esp) as well as the rest of Asia, which are all high in GHG and energy output. And this is also where the greatest increase in strength of storms has been. Let's, but let's stick to science instead of science fiction. These are great concepts but we need some science before discussing concrete solutions. Throwing hysteria into the mix in order to drive decisions, does not help.By the way, I am for reducing emissions and energy output anyway. There are more immediate detrimental effects from emissions, and energy output is waste which means inefficiency. I'd be much more motivated by having someone say, hey I can't see shit outside and its hard to breath because of all the smog, even on its good days it just looks ugly, and I'm wasting good energy... can't something be done to improve this? Being below sea level, and where glaciation has had an integral connection to the area, I would as well. Heck I'd watch it just because I like reading science stuff.In any case, there is currently no evidence for GW creating an Ice Age in the common sense of the word, it is completely contrary to the concept of GW, or climate change based on GW models. Glaciation itself will take some time and I doubt you'd live to see it happen even if that were a possible outcome.I do find it odd that you seem to accept what a majority of scientists say if it confirms a potential problem, and then dismiss what the majority says (including some of the very same people) when they disconfirm a potential problem. ??? It was sold as being a reducer of GHG production. Up until nuclear energy (and still existing in developing nations, including China) fossil fuels were the main source of energy production. That would be CO2.And yes it would also result in other benefits as far as soot and smell. I don't agree that it produces more problems than it solves, but I do agree that it is a stepping stone to better technology. In any case, it beats the hell out of fossil fuel energy production.I am for solar and wind for most individual and local power production. I'd love to see most power taken "off the grid", and reduce the need for nuclear power. I just know that we'll still need that for large energy supplies, as well as running things like hydrogen car "filling stations". Yup. I'm all for proactive environmentalism, indeed as built into manufacturing as we can get. I just don't believe that equals shouting at people that the sky is falling and we need to do something, anything, before it does.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The weather is the weather and it will change. Look at some 0f the trends in the past...Some very very hot days in the distant past. Like on this day in 1908 it was 124 degrees in Podunk Texas etc... More CO2 in Earths ancient atmosphere than even today.3 Ice ages. Theorhetical snowball Earth..my goodness Holmes whats a planet to do?I have a feeling we are being inadvertantley weaned off of fossil fuels by sheer economics. We may not go gently but everyone has a breaking point.If gas get to around 4.00 a gallon you will eventually see a greater trend in smaller cars and hybrids. And more Hummers garaged.If gas get to around 5.00 a gallon you will see more mopeds and motorcycles.
At 6.00 a gallon thats 120 bucks for 20 gallons of gas....
I will be biking it to work. When gas exceeds your car payment wont that be a laugh.Yep the global warming may be due to the fuming heat rising off our heads at the gas pumps.

quote:

---

The weather is the weather and it will change. Look at some 0f the trends in the past...Some very very hot days in the distant past. Like on this day in 1908 it was 124 degrees in Podunk Texas etc... More CO2 in Earths ancient atmosphere than even today.
3 Ice ages. Theorhetical snowball Earth..my goodness Holmes whats a planet to do?

---

This is certainly true, in that climate will always be changing if we influence it or not.However, it's important to remember that just because previous climate changes have been natural does not necessarily mean that all climate change must be natural. I've encountered a lot of intelligent people that tend to confuse that point.

On the contrary, if Homo Sapiens sapiens are a natural consequence of Earth and the Cosmos then who's to say anything that humans affect is un-natural.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche