Wow! I remember in the 70's the "sky is falling" crowd was predicting a coming ice age because of global cooling. As I recall, the reason was the same: all of the pollution etc that we were pouring into the atmosphere. It's funny how all of the stuff we were pouring into the atmosphere, until the 70's, caused global cooling, and now the same stuff is causing global warming. Maybe it's because the environmental movement caused us to clean up emissions about that time. Maybe reducing clean air restrictions will fix it.
I just find it hard to believe in just 30 years the experts can determine that this is indeed a long term trend. As a matter of fact I'm kind of skeptical any time humans try to "fix" nature. >> -----Original Message----- > >Just because we didn't cause ALL of the warming events doesn't mean that we >aren't causing this one. That logic is completely twisted. (Can a rapist >use the defense that he didn't commit the last rape investigated so he must >not have committed this one?) > >The warming after an ice age is caused for much the same reason: an usually >large release of CO2 in a short (geologically) time span (several thousand >years). As the ice receded it exposes thousands of square miles of dead >organic matter which (as organic matter tends to do) rotted. > >The current case has additional problems. We're releasing vast amounts of >CO2 (in this case from fossil fuel consumption) AND we're destroying the >available CO2 sinks (the forests and jungles, especially in the Amazon and >green ocean algae) which means more of that CO2 ends up in the atmosphere >than ever before. > >The fossil fuel resources that we're expending actually represent former CO2 >sinks (forests) as well, so we're not only destroying the current sinks, but >we're "unlocking" ancient ones as well. > >We're also doing things faster than ever. The glaciers of the last ice age >took thousands of years to recede and release that CO2 - we're set to match >that output in much less time (perhaps much, much less time). > >Lastly the damage to the ozone still has to figure in completely, but it >seems more and more likely that allowing more energetic radiation in through >the atmosphere will act as an accelerating factor. > >It's also becoming quite clear that relatively minor changes in global >climate has tremendously vast implications over the long term. Most models >are now showing, to circle around, that the last ice age was the result of >very small global temperature changes. > >(As an aside this affects another hobby of mine, the search for intelligent >life in the universe. Unfortunately the evidence that small changes create >huge implications could also mean that the chances for planets to form in >the possibly rather thin "hospitable" zone around a star are very small. >Then again atmospheric composition could also play a much larger regulating >role and the zone could be quite broad. Anyway... it's not really part of >the discussion.) > >So, is man the only cause of Global Warming? No, of course not. But is he >the cause of THIS global warming? Most scientists would agree that in large >part, yes he is. At the very least he's a major contributing factor. > >Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:141102 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
