Global Warming & rising sea level

Don't know, but there's not much we can do to stop nature. One thing for sure is that man certainly hasn't improved or even maintained our atmosphere from the start of the industrial revolution till now, and there Was something we could have done about that. But we didn't and won't. Not profitable.

It's very profitable. Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever we're now calling it, is probably the biggest financial scam/con game running on the planet right now. Talk about your inconvenient truth.

Of course there's scams, and some very big ones. There's insurance scams too, but I still buy insurance. Question, is our atmosphere as pure as it was 200 years ago, and is the change man-made, and is it a change for the wose? Would the air and water be better if we weren't here? I just ask for realism. I don't expect change. I have little faith in mankind. Eventually it'll all go back to the rats, the roaches and the horseshoe crabs.

The atmosphere is probably as pure as ever on a global scale, remember that the aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a couple of days at the time. Here is an interesting article on how little we know of what the pollution does to the climate; http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/

Actually the article says 4 days to a week, and not mentioned is that we continually replenish the supply. But that's great news. It means that all we have to do is stop polluting for about a week. It also says that man is only responsible for 10% of the pollutants in the atmosphere. I have a small lake near my house, and I'm sure nobody will mind if I only fill 10% with my trash. Sounds like perfect reasons to do nothing and just enjoy the beautiful sunsets. BTW, what happens to those pollutants when they're no longer suspended in our atmosphere? Mmmmm. It's so tasty too.

I'm no scientist, and even scientists seem to rarely agree on much (depending who pays for their studies). All I'm saying is that I have trouble seeing our polluting our world as being good for us.

The 70s was the "Coming Ice Age" then came "Global Warming" and by now Long Island is to be under 15' of sea water. And when that didn't happen it had to be "Climate Change" Maybe, not that I believe it, but maybe something is happening, however when the climate "scientists" (and I use the term loosely at best) publish their results and destroy the data that was used to come to those results stating it is no longer needed, and when the documents exposed by Bradley Manning show the gov paying off countries to go along with the "climate" program, and the money being made by the "climate" pushers who don't believe themselves or they wouldn't act the way they do in their own lives and sell their news stations to the oil backed aljezerra, and when the "scientists" are caught in the emails discussed how to cook the books, etc etc. How can one believe it? If you are presented faux facts using fraudulent methods you tend to not believe it, true or not. And I think not.

This planet "warmed" from a block of ice to begin life, without any cars, trucks, humans, hairspray, cow farts, or the existence of fossils fuels and therefore I think it implausible that we are causing any significant change by our daily activities when untouched, this planet thawed itself. Maybe the air quality goes up and down but I doubt the planet is affected in any way.

One can't take a miniscule portion of time and evaluate an object millions of years old.

If this is what is going to happen when all the ice melts I had better move quick!

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-earth-would-look-like-if-ice-melted-world-map-animation-2015-2

Yes, you only have about 10.000 years if the speed of melting goes up ten times...

(BTW, the sea levels are not going up faster today than 100 years ago...)

Whew!!

But on the other hand, with so much cold water in the oceans, there will be much less CO2 in the atmosphere and a new glacial period will be triggered...

The thing I love about the Global warming argument is that it's so big and convoluted that it can be argued back and forth until the end of time and nothing will ever get accomplished. All you need is one person to close their eyes, ears and mind. That's why I simply ask: Is it good for us to pollute our planet and atmosphere? Is it good to deforest it? Is it good to dump our garbage into the oceans and spew smoke into our atmosphere? From a boater's standpoint I'm just glad that teak and cedar are still so widely available. Are these things good for our world? Dupont, General Electric and a few other corporations told us it was perfectly ok to dump toxic waste into the Hudson River, because it increased profits. Then that tree-huger Pete Seeger raised a ruckus. I bet all those people living along the Hudson miss the old days when you could drop a hook and find fish like no place else in the world and the water had that fragrance.

I'm new to this site but like the "political/dock walk" areas on other sites there sure is a heated debate here about Global Warming! One thing that bothers me is that those on the left-end of the political spectrum rapidly devolve to name-calling when moderate and right-enders challenge their beliefs. Just because someone does not believe in Global Warming doesn't mean they lack empathy, are stupid, are hate-filled, or any other mean things you can say about another person.

Our government "leaders" fund research that attempts to prove global warming/climate change is happening, is man-made, will have disastrous consequences, and can be slowed. That is why there is so much research to back up the claims. It is also why data has been manipulated and worse.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows for sure whether global warming/climate change is caused or exacerbated my humans.

I, personally, believe that there are too many human beings on the planet. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to "thin the herd" that would be acceptable to any of us. "Soylent Green," anyone?

Rob,
Please point out the name-calling. I seem to have missed it here. Please also explain to us why a subject like Global Warming has anything to do with politics. Yes it was the pet project of Al Gore (whom I have very little affection for), but we all live on this planet. We're all bringing our children and grandchildren to life on this planet. There is debate about the cause and what can or can't be done about it, but that's mostly a matter of finance, making money. Same as smoking was fine until the lawsuits made it less profitable to back. I'm not aware of any current scientific research that disputes the existence of Global Warming today. As for thinning the herd, we do a pretty good job of that through a little item called war (another very profitable pursuit). Are you now suggesting that we kill the old, sick and disabled? That discussion belongs more on boards like CL.

P.S. Heard on the news just yesterday that the sea lions from So. Cal. are heading your way as they can't survive the warming oceans down south.

Research grants don't depend on reaching a certain conclusion.

Only virtually every single climate scientist on the planet.

Naive Definition
adj. adjective

• 1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially.
• 2. Simple and guileless; artless. a child with a naive charm.
• 3. Unsuspecting or credulous.

...which planet is that?

You took the words right from under my fingetips whle I searched for my YF Password as I was asked to log in again following a browser tweak.

Today I read an article written 1992, long before the 18 year Global Warming "hiatus" started. They were pretty realistic about the whole scare already then....
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/lookbeforeyouleap.pdf

I agree with everything you said, except for the politician/money-driven conclusion that CO2 is a 'pollutant'. Only in a power-driven insane world can a TRACE gas responsible for life on this planet be deemed harmful, and thus necessary to tax and regulate.

“Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent),” said meteorologist Joseph D’Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year),” he said. “We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

Hope all have a great Easter (The original, and unamendable, Religious Freedom Restoration Act) this weekend!

I have no idea. That's my simple position.

I hear both sides and such strong arguments against each other. Seems like the science should easily determine the answer but everyone has a different science they refer to. As to whether they have agendas, I don't even see how that question comes up. Everyone has an agenda on everything they're involved in. Even just wanting to get the facts out is an agenda. I had an agenda in this post although not sure what it was.

I think basically to admit I'm confused on the issue and that I'm not so forward looking that I honestly devote a lot of time and effort into understanding it better. That on top of not trusting any of the sources of information on either side of the issue. I know it's short sighted and not thinking of 10 or 100 generations down the road, but my mind is stretched far enough just dealing with the present and near future. We know the climate and nature of the planet has changed over the course of many eon's. I'm guessing it will continue to change but doubt seriously I'll be around that many eon's going forward to observe. That sort of says too that none of us alive today will ever know who was right or wrong. I suspect very few of early man would have projected the world of today.

Hi NYCAP,

On the first page of this thread Airship wrote:
“First Pericles, rarely have I encountered anyone who appears to lack even an ounce of empathy (see a description of empathy here). <snip> I'm extremely saddenned (sic) by people like you. And your apparent total lack of empathy. You would "probably never in a billion years" be able to imagine yourself as a polar bear, a snow leopard, an arctic fox or any other of a 10,000 lesser creatures?!”
I would consider that to be name calling and/or a personal attack. You don't believe the theory of global warming? You have no empathy!

And, yes, anyone who believes that government grants are awarded without consideration of the expected results is naive. It only takes a quick google search to find plenty of educated critiques of climate change theory and funding being withheld from research that goes against the theory. You will also find documented examples of prior data being changed or ignored because it doesn't support the theory being espoused. You will also find documented examples of thermometers being moved from a wooded area to an asphalt parking lot without taking into account the expected changes in readings.