Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.

[Wesley]

Study Finds Hurricanes Frequent in Some Cooler Periods

J. Donnelly
On the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, members of the Woods Hole research team collected sediments left by hurricanes of earlier times.

writePost();


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: May 24, 2007
Over the last 5,000 years, the eastern Caribbean has experienced several periods, lasting centuries, in which strong hurricanes occurred frequently even though ocean temperatures were cooler than those measured today, according to a new study.
Unearth Our Stormy Past (July 24, 2001)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/hurricane/

Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African monsoon (Nature)




The authors, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, say their findings do not necessarily conflict with recent papers asserting a link between the region’s hurricane activity and human-caused warming of the climate and seas.
But, they say, their work does imply that factors other than ocean temperature, at least for thousands of years, appear to have played a pivotal role in shaping storminess in the region.
The study compared a 5,000-year record of strong storms etched in lagoon mud on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques with data on ocean temperatures and climate and storm patterns. The analysis is being published today in the journal Nature.
The Woods Hole team found that stormier spans, including one from 1700 until now, were associated with a relative paucity of El Niño warm-ups of the tropical Pacific Ocean and also with periods of heightened monsoon intensity in West Africa.
El Niño episodes tend to change wind patterns in ways that weaken Atlantic Ocean hurricanes, and Africa is a nursery for storm fronts that can drift westward and develop into hurricanes.
Storm records extracted from sediments on the Gulf Coast by other scientists, and near New York City by the Woods Hole team, show a similar pattern, implying that the shifts from quieter to stormier times are not just a local phenomenon, the authors said.
Jeffrey P. Donnelly, the lead author, said the findings pointed to the importance of figuring out an unresolved puzzle: whether global warming will affect the Niño cycle one way or the other. More intense or longer Pacific warm-ups could stifle Atlantic and Caribbean hurricanes even with warmer seas, Dr. Donnelly said.
“Warm sea-surface temperatures are clearly the fuel for intense hurricanes,â€￾ he said. “What our work says is that without sea temperatures varying a lot, the climate system can flip back and forth between active and inactive regimes.â€￾
He added that a disturbing possibility was a warming of waters while conditions in the Pacific and Africa are in their hurricane-nurturing mode.
“If you flip that knob and also have warming seas,â€￾ Dr. Donnelly said, “oh boy, who knows what could happen?â€￾
Judith A. Curry, an atmospheric scientist at Georgia Tech, said the new study, together with other recent research on warming and storms by her and others, added to a picture of rising risk and lagging government action on reducing vulnerability of coastal populations in the Atlantic and Caribbean hurricane zone.
“The bottom line is that we are in an unusually active period of hurricane activity, as a result of a combination of natural variability and global warming,â€￾ Dr. Curry said. “Analyses have been done, plans have been put on the table, but nothing seems to be happening.â€￾

 

[Cyclonepride]

Good Lord, this thread is still going? I thought the Earth would have flooded by now, or we would have all boiled like eggs. Oh well, I'll just go back to my bunker and wait it out some more:laugh8kb:. Oh, and any argument siting Nancy Pelosi as a reference is automatically lost. Man Law!

 

[Wesley]

Europe furious at US climate call

By Fiona Harvey in London, Hugh Williamson in Berlin and George Parker in Brussels
Published: June 1 2007 19:52 | Last updated: June 1 2007 19:52

Germany and the European Commission reacted angrily to President George W. Bush’s apparent change of heart on climate change on Friday, setting the stage for a stormy G8 summit of rich industrialised countries next week.
A spokesman for Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor and current G8 president, said Germany’s stance that climate talks should take place within the United Nations was “non-negotiable”. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, dismissed the proposals for climate talks as vague and “the classic US line”.

Mr Bush on Thursday appeared to suggest a parallel process to the UN, by which the world’s 15 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would within 18 months “establish a new framework on greenhouse gases when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012” and “set a long-term global goal on reducing emissions”.
His proposal marked a reversal of the US policy of refusing to discuss emissions cuts and rejecting a global framework such as Kyoto.

VIDEO

Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent, analyses whether Bush’s reversal on climate change offers any hope

​

But the plans are starkly different from the proposal tabled by Germany for next week’s G8 summit, which would require leaders to agree to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius and require stringent emissions cuts.
Attitudes within Europe hardened on Friday as some politicians and activists accused Mr Bush of trying to wreck next week’s summit, and UN negotiations on climate change, set to take place this December.
José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, told the Financial Times Mr Bush should be “more ambitious” and said the UN must “remain the basis for setting – and achieving – binding, measurable and enforceable targets”.
Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister, said Mr Bush’s speech could mark a “change in the US position or a manoeuvre aimed at causing confusion”.
A comment by Mr Bush to German media that Ms Merkel “will be pleased” with his proposals, which run counter to her own, was seen as provocative.
There were signs on Friday night that Mr Bush’s proposals would split the G8, which some sceptics argue is his intention. Stephen Harper, Canada’s prime minister, welcomed the plans, as did Tony Blair, Britain’s outgoing prime minister, and Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister.
“It’s absolutely intended to split the G8,” said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace.
Mr Abe said: “I believe the United States too is finally getting serious in dealing with global warming.” Tokyo’s position is that binding targets have failed because they leave out the world’s biggest emitters, especially the US, China and India. It is championing a vaguer approach, in which the world’s biggest emitters pledge to use technology to tackle emissions.
Yasuhisa Shiozaki, the chief cabinet secretary, said: “We believe Prime Minister Abe and President Bush share the same perspective and look forward to achieving significant progress [next week].”

 

[Wesley]

Dutch try to grow enviro-friendly meat in lab

Fri Jun 1, 2007 1:14PM EDT
By Reed Stevenson
UTRECHT, The Netherlands (Reuters) - Dutch researchers are trying to grow pork meat in a laboratory with the goal of feeding millions without the need to raise and slaughter animals.
"We're trying to make meat without having to kill animals," Bernard Roelen, a veterinary science professor at Utrecht University, said in an interview.
Although it is in its early stages, the idea is to replace harvesting meat from livestock with a process that eliminates the need for animal feed, transport, land use and the methane expelled by animals, which all hurt the environment, he said.
"Keeping animals just to eat them is in fact not so good for the environment," said Roelen. "Animals need to grow, and animals produce many things that you do not eat."
Developed nations are expected to consume an average of 43 kg per capita of poultry, beef, pork and other meats this year, an amount that rises around 2 percent annually, data from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation shows.
Asked whether people would be repulsed by lab-grown meat, Roelen said he believed there would be enough demand, as much of what people eat today is already extensively processed, from the feed that animals consume to the conditions under which they are raised and the preparation of meat after slaughter.
"I can imagine that some people will have problems with it," he said. "People might think it is artificial. But some people might not realize that some part of the meat they eat is artificial."
Research is also under way in the United States, including one experiment funded by U.S. space agency NASA to see whether meat can be grown for astronauts during long space missions.
But it will take years before meat grown in labs and eventually factories reaches supermarket shelves. And so far, Roelen and his team have managed to grow only thin layers of cells that bear no resemblance to pork chops.
Under the process, researchers first isolate muscle stem cells, which have the ability to grow and multiply into muscle cells. Then they stimulate the cells to develop, give them nutrients and exercise them with electric current to build bulk.
After perfecting that process, scientists will then need to figure out how to layer tissues to add more bulk, since meat grown in petri dishes lacks the blood vessels needed to deliver nutrients through thick muscle fibers.
And then there is the question of fat, to add flavor.

 

[Wesley]

NASA chief unsure of need to tackle global warming

Jun 1 12:23 PM US/Eastern

View larger image

Debate raged on Friday after NASA chief Michael Griffin said he was unsure global warming was a "problem we must wrestle with," drawing the ire of his own agency's top climate change expert.
Griffin, who has come under fire in Congress for cutting programs aimed at monitoring climate change, said in a US radio interview Thursday he had "no doubt that a trend of global warming exists."
But, he told National Public Radio, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
James Hansen, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's top official on climate change, expressed shock at Griffin's comments in a later interview with NPR.
Asked his response, Hansen said: "I almost fell off my chair."
"It was a shocking statement because of the level of ignorance it indicated with regard to the current situation," Hansen told NPR.
"He seemed unaware that 170 nations agreed that climate change is a serious problem with enormous repercussions, and that many people will suffer if it is not addressed," he said.
Griffin said it was "NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information," according to a statement issued later.
"It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies," he added.
Bart Gordon, chairman of the Science and Technology committee in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, also took a shot at Griffin.
"Based on NASA's own five-year budget plan, the agency will be unable to start any of the new Earth observations initiatives recommended by the National Academies for the foreseeable future.
"That's not going to get us where we need to be in our understanding of climate change." Griffin's comments came on the same day US President George W. Bush said he would urge major industrialized nations at a summit next week to join a new global framework for fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol lapses.

 

[Wesley]

They call this a consensus?


Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

View Larger Image More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

National Post's Deniers series:
Scientists who challenge the climate change debate

​

The series


Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX



More on the environment My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.
A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.
Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."
Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. Email: [email protected].

 

[Wesley]

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 03 June 2007



Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.
They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.
News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.
The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.
Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.
Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.
The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.
The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.
The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.
On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.
In yesterday's clashes, masked protesters hurled flagpoles, stones and bottles and attacked with sticks forcing police to retreat. The police said they were suffering "massive assaults" and that the situation was "very chaotic". They put the size of the demonstration at 25,000; organisers said it was 80,000.

 

[Wesley]

Everybody Talks About the Weather; All of a Sudden, It’s Controversial

Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times
Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s resident climate expert.




By MARIA ASPAN
Published: June 4, 2007
ATLANTA — For 25 years, they have been talking about the weather nonstop.
Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image
Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times
The Weather Channel’s president, Debora J. Wilson, says it is “good business” to discuss climate change.



At The Weather Channel, which has its headquarters here, that talk once amounted to a reliable humdrum of forecasts and storm coverage in the United States and abroad. In addition to broadcasting weather reports, the channel has thrived by selling its utilitarian but appealing content to newspapers, radio stations and Web sites, and by developing specialty programs around everyone’s favorite elevator-ride conversation topic.
“The weather is not controversial, but people are very engaged with it,” Debora J. Wilson, the president of the network, said in a recent interview in her office.
The daily weather forecast is rarely controversial, but the broader topic of climate change has generated no end of debate.
As the network has seen its primary subject turn into a hot-button issue, it has had to grapple with how it wants to address it — and has decided not to tread gingerly.
The issue started influencing the network’s coverage in a new way after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast in 2005, and has been shaping its programming decisions.
“If The Weather Channel isn’t talking about climate change and global warming, who is?” said Kaye Zusmann, the vice president for program strategy and development for the network. “It’s our mandate.”
The network, which had been gearing up for the opening of hurricane season on Friday, sees the engagement with the issues surrounding climate change as important for content and for business.
“We have a point of view, and we think it’s really important to articulate why it’s happening. Secondarily, it’s good business,” said Ms. Wilson, the network president. “Many consumers want to know, ‘What should I do?’ ”
The lightning rod for controversy, so to speak, is Heidi Cullen, the network’s resident climate expert.
In December, she raised the ire of Fox News and others by writing on her weather.com blog that the American Meteorological Society should not give its “seal of approval” to any meteorologist who “can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change.” (There are now more than 1,700 comments on that one post.)
Dr. Cullen, a tiny woman who speaks with conviction, said she believed that people were “finally seeing climate connected to weather,” but that a lot of information still needs to be disseminated. “If you turn on the local forecast, you wouldn’t necessarily know that global warming exists,” she said.
Far from being intimidated by the political backlash, Dr. Cullen and executives at the channel say they have embraced the issue of global warming. Dr. Cullen is host of the weekly show “Forecast Earth,” formerly named “The Climate Code” where she has entertained such guests as former Vice President Al Gore. She also appears on the channel’s other programming with segments on hybrid taxicabs in New York City and the development of more fuel-efficient aircraft.
The network’s other programs have also directly engaged the elephant in the room — or, in this case, the polar bear on the melting ice cap: a recent anniversary roundup of “The 100 Biggest Weather Moments” listed global warming as No. 1. And the network is training its meteorologists so that they can discuss long-term trends as well as five-day forecasts.
“Weather information on an on-demand basis is the foundation of what we do, and a deeper experience on an emotional level brings us to life.” Ms. Wilson said.
Besides sections devoted to travel, golf and pets (yes, pets), the weather.com Web site also has interactive features like blogs and user-submitted videos — as well as consumer-information sections that give users tips on how to prepare for a severe storm, or how to reduce a carbon footprint.
Recent developments, from the strong scientific consensus about global warming to President Bush’s proposal last week to set goals for cutting global emissions, seem to have made the network’s embrace of the topic less risky and more closely tied to its service-journalism mission.
“I think the debate for most Americans has moved away from, ‘Is global warming happening?’ to ‘What do I do?’ ” Ms. Zusmann said. “The viewers want what they always want; they want good television.”
And rather than jeopardizing its relationships with potential advertisers, which include car and airline companies, the network’s focus on global warming might make it more attractive, said Jason Maltby, president and co-executive director for national broadcast at MindShare North America, an advertising agency owned by WPP.
“There might be some categories that shy away from global warming, but I don’t think that would have an overall large impact,” Mr. Maltby said.
The Weather Channel is owned by Landmark Communications, a privately held company controlled by the Batten family of Norfolk, Va., which also owns daily newspapers and other media properties. Ms. Wilson said that she is often asked whether, in the frenzy of media mergers, her network might be sold to a larger corporation.
“Every media conglomeration has approached Landmark, and there’s never been a yes,” she said, adding that after working through the “hard early years,” Landmark has no plans to lose the channel.
“We actually think that we’re stronger being independent,” she said, adding that she is glad to avoid the “distractions” that would come with being part of a larger company. “We like focusing on what we do.”
In one of its most significant investments, The Weather Channel celebrated its silver anniversary by breaking ground on a new $50 million high-definition video studio, which will adjoin its current building. All programming will eventually be available in high-definition when the studio is fully operational, by October 2008.
The Weather Channel continues to cut deals with advertisers and media companies, like the online portals Yahoo and AOL. Toyota sponsors a section of the weather.com Web site that gives tips on fishing conditions at various lakes, and WCBS, a local New York television affiliate, supplies The Weather Channel with local videos. Under a partnership with BusinessWeek, The Weather Channel’s “First Outlook” program offers a look at how the weather affects business.
The main weather.com Web site, established in 1995, regularly lands on Nielsen’s list of top 10 to 15 sites, attracting 39 million unique monthly visitors in April, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. Of the channel’s 800 employees, over 200 work on the Web site; by contrast, the channel has only about 125 dedicated meteorologists.
Ms. Wilson acknowledged that ratings for The Weather Channel were down in 2006 from 2005 — she attributed the decline to the comedown after coverage of Hurricane Katrina — but said that revenues are “growing fairly robustly.”
As other television channels and their advertisers struggle to retain viewers in the age of DVRs, The Weather Channel has largely remained immune. Last year, the channel entered into a partnership with Starcom, an agency that is part of the Publicis Groupe, guaranteeing minute-to-minute ratings; at this year’s television upfronts, the network extended that guarantee to qualified other advertisers and agencies.
Viewers, Ms. Wilson said, need to keep watching. “It’s perishable information,” she said, “It’s really TiVo-proof.”

 

[herbiedoobie]

Well, if dissenters are being suppressed, fired and "black-balled" for attempting to investigate global warming, it MUST be true.

Developing a consensus through persecution is a technique, I guess....

 

[rooster]

Fear is a powerful political tool and it comes from both sides of the aisle. While the right will use their fight against terror to bring voters, the left will use their fight against climate change/global warming. Not saying these problems don't exist, but politics are at least part of the reason we are told to fear these so much.

 

[photomuse]

I'm not at all convinced that man is driving a global temperature shift. This is not accepted by all scientists studying the climate, and I remain skeptical. The earth seems to have an amazing number of systems that regulate the temperature of the planet, and I'm not convinced that we are upsetting a fragile balance. After all, in the past much more violent things have been dealt with by the planet (such as comet impacts) that violently disrupt atmospheric conditions, and the earth compensates. Sure, lots of things die off as well.

However, some of there is some misinformation is in this thread. For example, Man IS responsible for the vast majority of the Carbon Dioxide concentration increases in the atmosphere. Things like volcanos produce very little in comparison to man. As far as I understand, this is pretty much accepted by the scientific community. Suggesting that a volcano can produces just as much Co2 as man is just misinformation.

I believe it is not whether man is affecting the atmospheric concentration of Co2 (which is a trace gas) that is debated among scientists, but rather weather this affect is driving some sort of climate change. After all, Co2 is a rather insignificant warming agent when compared to water vapor and cloud cover. However, some scientists have speculated that Co2 is a driving factor while water is a responsive variable, which is where the debate comes about. Will the change of Co2 concentrations cause a temperature shift that will drive temperatures away from "normal" (actually there is no such thing as a normal temperature. Things were much warmer in the middle ages than they are today).

So anyway. Yeah.

 

[intrepid27]

First of all I'd like to say that I'd asy I'm above average when it comes to being environmentaly responsible. I'm an avid outdoorsman and I'm heading to the Boundary Waters on Friday. I wish people would stop and remenbr that the climate has been changing on its own for millions of years. Take Iowa for example. Most of the state was coverd by glaciers at one time or another. Yet you can find fossils that verfy the existance of warm (almost tropical) seas in the same areas as glacial depisits. I'd say that consitutes extreme climate change long before neanderthals started using aresol deoderant. Lets focus on something we can impact. Like new energy sources, a strong economy, and beating the pi$$ out of the Hawks.


"Clone to the Bone"