We had the coldest winter in 40 years in the UK, our scientists are now saying were entering a colder period... ironic is'nt it that global warming means we freeze our nuts off here...I hate it...!

The way I have read it, climate change globally isn't predicted to change more than one or two degrees in the near future. But one or two degrees upsets delicate climate balances worldwide. Some places get hotter, drier. Some places get colder. Some get bigger hurricanes (JUST what I need here in Florida!), some get flooded. But the swings continue to widen.

If you live in the UK, read up about the ice melt from the Greenland glaciers threatening to disrupt how the Atlantic currents function. Imagine England without the Gulf Stream to warm its' climate...

Global climate patterns are FAR too complex to assume silly things. This is far too serious to be funny, I fear. By the time the whole world gets warmer, it will be too late to do anything. Of course, you and I won't be around by then, so who cares, eh?!

Aprés moi, le deluge.

Never were words more appropriate.

Whether or not you believe it global warming caused by man, here are a couple web sites that put things in perspective.
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/

Additionally, Al Gore and others have claimed the scientific community agrees and the data is undisputed. NOT! 30,000 climatologist sent letters to the White House saying the scientists do not agree, and that by and large, global warming, and cooling, is nothing more than an anomaly created by sun spots. And, according to information on several websites the earth's average temperature has not increased on a decade.

Keep in mind that the planet cannot survive without carbon dioxide. The percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been relatively stable for millions of years, and science revealed that the highest CO2 level historically was when dinosaurs roamed the planet.

Steve Milloy's book "Green Hell" should be mandatory reading for everyone. I purchased the book at Barnes & Noble, it cost me $28 and I read it cover to cover in just a few days. Since then I have loaned it to a half-dozen friends that sincerely believed global warming was caused by man--they've since changed their minds.

Cheers,

Gary

Does it honestly matter whether it is caused by man or not? Bottom line is, we are the only instrument on the planet that can change its' effects, and whether we or anything else are the cause, is that going to matter when global change affects crops and global political stability?

"A hungry man is an angry man"

If we need to leverage our present for our great grandchildren's futures, will it matter to them when we fail to act that it wasn't actually CAUSED by us..? If we COULD have fixed it but didn't?

BTW, according to this simple Google search, it isn't even POSSIBLE to determine CO2 levels during the dinosaurs age. About 20 million years is our limit, way past the 65 million year departure point of the terrible lizards. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm. And, according to this, to quote the article "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"

But I bet that inconvenient fact didn't make it to 'Green Hell'.

Green Hell clearly shows that we, as humans, have little or any impact on the atmospheric CO2 levels, and we DO NOT have the ability to lower these levels--even if all human, carbon emissions immediately ceased. Nothing would change.

Fear mongering by politicians and the scientific community has been a way of life for centuries. How many times has you read this or that would bring the world to an end. Remember Y2K? Remember the asteroid threat? How about the mini Ice Age that took place in an era when we had tons of gas guzzlers on our highways, vehicles that averaged 7 MPG.

In realistic terms, our atmospheric conditions seem to have improved significantly over the past century. This is especially true in the UK, California, and the mid-western U.S., locations where smog (smoke and fog) poisoned the air we breath to the extent where you couldn't see more than a few city blocks. Though most folks are too young to remember, there was a time when thousands of individuals died in London when smog was so dense that it caused suffocation for those who ventured outdoors.

Green Hell is a real eye opener, and as I stated earlier, it should be mandatory reading.

Gotta' go to work,

Cheers,

Gary

Almost forgot. A recent program on the History Channel, How The Earth Was Made, clearly reveals that sea levels during that particular era were not higher, but instead, land levels were lower. The program revealed how those mountain ranges worldwide were created, pushing skyward from the bottom of the sea by shifting of the planet's mantels and volcanic activity.

Cheers,

Gary

[This message has been edited by travlin'easy (edited 02-12-2010).]

Gary, stunning !!!...enjoyed your insight and well informed post...top man!

Should have watched that program a little more carefully, Gary... I saw it too. The earth's entire crust doesn't rise and fall, only in certain spots at crustal boundaries. The entire earth does not swell up or contract (which it would need to, to get a global raising of the planet's dry surface).

Once you get a certain point of view, it's all too easy to slot half understood science into your briefcase of 'facts'. The global raising of land levels is absurd. What does the sea rest in? Basins of land. Raise the level of the bottom of the sea (as you swell the entire planet, in your 'theory'), you raise the height of the water also contained. Sorry, but that one floats worse than CO2 being caused by sunspots...

Let's also address those 30,000 scientists. Are numbers your criteria for credibility? So, if 60,000 say we ARE the cause, does that make it a valid statement..? Remember, once upon a time, only ONE scientist believed the world went round the sun...

If your reason for picking one side or another is based on intuitions as spurious as 'the water levels didn't rise, the land fell' I'd take a read of a few books on the other side of the aisle to balance the one you DID

Actually, it was an entire series of programs, and I watched nearly all of them. Yes, there were segments that rose, not the entire Earth's surface. And, I have read books from the opposite side of the isle, some of which were very interesting.

Reading is something I do 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It's a habit I got into when I was an aspiring journalist. When I first decided I wanted to be a writer, Lefty Kreh, an old friend considered to be the best outdoor writer and fly angler on the planet said to me "If you want to be a good writer, you must first be a good reader." He should know. He has published more books than anyone I know of, and at 82 years of age is still working in the field.

As for solar flares, also known as sun spots, causing rises and falls in CO2, I didn't say that either. Solar flares, which I referred to, have been well documented as the primary reason for changes in the planets temperature. Keep in mind that temperature changes on Mars have coincided with temperature changes on Earth--not many CO2 emissions on Mars, at least none that we know of.

This has really strayed well beyond the bounds of OT and I apologize to everyone for my rantings on a subject that has nothing to do with music or arranger keyboards.

Cheers,

Gary

But an interesting hijack, nonetheless...

The thing amongst the evidence for planetary warming that should give us the most concern is the almost 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels, and global temperature, long term. Sunspot activity is cyclical, and if that WERE the primary cause, you would think that that, and NOT the CO2 levels that would show the tracking. But as far back as we can accurately go, it's CO2 that is the bellwether of global temperature.

It's true that most estimates put humans' contribution to total CO2 emissions at about 10% of those that are natural. But if reducing that 10% helps delay or reduce global warming enough to avoid some of the 'trigger' events like global ocean currents' disruption, is it worth it..?

I'm sure you have insurance. Despite your odds of a disaster being WAY under 50%.

Does the planet deserve some 'insurance' too? Not to mention that most of the human sources of CO2 emissions are finite, and useful to our society for FAR more than heating and transportation and electricity generation. Anything that moves the world along to other sources that don't emit and are more sustainable has got to be a good thing, even if it DOESN'T save the planet's ecology.

Petrochemical compounds are at the heart of much of our society, and we simply BURN most of it rather than bite the bullet and find more sustainable ways to get raw power. The faster they run out, the faster the day comes when all the OTHER things that use fossil fuel as raw ingredients (you definitely know how much of the pharmaceutical and health care industries rely on petrochemical derived compounds with few affordable artificial substitutes) become unaffordable.

There's more to some of the things that need to be done than simple 'turn down the thermostat'...