QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc Remember, the paper is based in a state that elected Hillary Clinton as a U.S. Senator. [:)] Dave QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Yeah I know. A beer aint gonna do it, I think its time for a whiskey. [|(] Oh well. Hopefully they will lose 80,000 subscriptions and then maybe they will rethink their stupidity. Probably not, though, they'll just chalk it up to a conspiricy.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Yeah I know. A beer aint gonna do it, I think its time for a whiskey. [|(] Oh well. Hopefully they will lose 80,000 subscriptions and then maybe they will rethink their stupidity. Probably not, though, they'll just chalk it up to a conspiricy.
QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc From the New York Times: "In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming: Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases. "Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science. Few journals would publi***hem. Few government agencies would pay for feasibility studies. Environmentalists and mainstream scientists said the focus should be on reducing greenhouse gases and preventing global warming in the first place. "But now, in a major reversal, some of the world's most prominent scientists say the proposals deserve a serious look because of growing concerns about global warming. "Worried about a potential planetary crisis, these leaders are calling on governments and scientific groups to study exotic ways to reduce global warming, seeing them as possible fallback positions if the planet eventually needs a dose of emergency cooling." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html?pagewanted=print Dave That is a very interesting article. The New York Times may believe in global warming, but I’ll bet that the advocates of exotic, engineering solutions threaten the global warming enthusiasts, much more so than do the mere non-believers. The engineering solution faction cannot be dismissed as easily as non-believers because they are believers. Furthermore, scientists will have a hard time dismissing the engineering solution faction because science loves engineering approaches to problems. After all, they are building a space station. And yet, an engineering solution to the problem of global warming flies in the face of the underlying agenda. Notice how one global warming scientist characterizes an engineering fix to global warming as an addiction. No, the politically correct remedy to global warming is nothing less than a reversal of the development of the modern, industrialized world. To the true believers of the mainstream global warming faction, the engineering approach to remedies will be just as offensive as the engineering that fuels the progress that they contend is causing global warming in the first place. Actually, I am surprised that the New York Times ran the article. They probably did not realize that it conflicts with their agenda.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc From the New York Times: "In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming: Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases. "Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science. Few journals would publi***hem. Few government agencies would pay for feasibility studies. Environmentalists and mainstream scientists said the focus should be on reducing greenhouse gases and preventing global warming in the first place. "But now, in a major reversal, some of the world's most prominent scientists say the proposals deserve a serious look because of growing concerns about global warming. "Worried about a potential planetary crisis, these leaders are calling on governments and scientific groups to study exotic ways to reduce global warming, seeing them as possible fallback positions if the planet eventually needs a dose of emergency cooling." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/earth/27cool.html?pagewanted=print Dave
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Sounds to me like the New York times is really just a bunch of droning morons. After they decided to risk the lives of Americans with their publication of state secrets, I refuse to accept anything they write, no matter how true THEY think they are. The old gray lady has turned into the old gray ***. The paper has an agenda, and every story they write is biased towards that agenda. They subscribe to the theory of global warming, so naturally they are going to publish stories that support global warming. Have you ever read anything in the times that did not support global warming? I would really think twice before relying on them for anything of importance. Sorry in advance of my venting here, but it has been a frustrating week. And it isn't even Wednesday yet.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules In the context of the Chinese project on the Yahn Se - 3500 families is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of families affected in China. And, much of ancient Chinese culture is going to be buried right along with the towns. It is also interesting to note that the problems associated with the dust bowl like poor soil quality due to overfarming, bankrupt farms due to poor soil performance, and a general lack of economy in the area were not rectified by the TVA. Think of it this way - how many people out of work in that area because of farming failures were able to support their families with employment at the TVA? How much of an increase in the areas' industrial base and cheap energy could be attributed to the benefits of the TVA? Did the human suffering that came about because of the TVA project compare to the Yahn se river project in China? If a majority say that they like their new homes and yet were still having problems with economic issues that existed BEFORE the construction is this really suffering attributed to the TVA project or the depression at large? What is the net gain or loss? In China's case the government has decided that relocating hundreds of thousands of people in order to obtain a cheap power source and a wide river capable of freight transport is a worthy trade. My point is that while this may be a good idea on a small scale (the TVA is a brick in a bathtub compared to the Yahn Se business) is it really worth destroying hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives? Would the TVA have proceeded if hundreds of thousands of peoples lives been uprooted? You may be under the impression that TVA only built one ***. They ***ed tributaries along a 1,000 mile navigable river. As in all such projects some were happy and some just stood on the banks of there new lake missing the past that is now underwater. Did it benifit the majority. Yes. The results are the same in China.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules In the context of the Chinese project on the Yahn Se - 3500 families is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of families affected in China. And, much of ancient Chinese culture is going to be buried right along with the towns. It is also interesting to note that the problems associated with the dust bowl like poor soil quality due to overfarming, bankrupt farms due to poor soil performance, and a general lack of economy in the area were not rectified by the TVA. Think of it this way - how many people out of work in that area because of farming failures were able to support their families with employment at the TVA? How much of an increase in the areas' industrial base and cheap energy could be attributed to the benefits of the TVA? Did the human suffering that came about because of the TVA project compare to the Yahn se river project in China? If a majority say that they like their new homes and yet were still having problems with economic issues that existed BEFORE the construction is this really suffering attributed to the TVA project or the depression at large? What is the net gain or loss? In China's case the government has decided that relocating hundreds of thousands of people in order to obtain a cheap power source and a wide river capable of freight transport is a worthy trade. My point is that while this may be a good idea on a small scale (the TVA is a brick in a bathtub compared to the Yahn Se business) is it really worth destroying hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives? Would the TVA have proceeded if hundreds of thousands of peoples lives been uprooted?
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith We are difinetly doing something to the earth....but nothing will be done by our Fearless Leaders or our Glorious Corporate Captains of Industry as long as they can still make money on Big Oil till Florida dissappears under the sea, then they'll just blame Castro and invade....
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc From the National Academy of Sciences: Date: June 22, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600 WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added. Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted. The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick." The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular. The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added. The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age. Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before 1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse, would increase our understanding of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition, improving access to data on which published temperature reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results. The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of the current limitations associated with large-scale reconstructions. The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows. Copies of Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years will be available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a pre-publication copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above). http://nationalacademies.org/ http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html? Dave That's really great - but it still doesn't explain how greenhouse gases brought about the first ice age. If they were much lower back then how did it happen?
QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc From the National Academy of Sciences: Date: June 22, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600 WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added. Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted. The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick." The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular. The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added. The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age. Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before 1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse, would increase our understanding of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition, improving access to data on which published temperature reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results. The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of the current limitations associated with large-scale reconstructions. The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows. Copies of Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years will be available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a pre-publication copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above). http://nationalacademies.org/ http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html? Dave
Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith PS the Glen Canyon dam did block a canyon some considered equal in granduer to the Grand Canyon, and its still there....also the Snake, Columbia,Colorado and innumerable western rivers have huge HUGE hyrdo-electric dams all up and down the rivers bottling millions of acres of water behind them covering old towns, roads, RR's etc. The 3 Rivers project in China is just on a bigger scale, and it would never happen here because no one in our government is willing to spend the money on it unless they are getting thier palms and their supporters palms greased in return, either that or it needs a huge wealthy lobbiest group behind it.... So, you have something against lakes? Resevoirs are just lakes, and such have their environmental benefits too. Not to mention increased recreational value over free flowing rivers. Lakes and reservoirs provide users with more H20 surface area than free flowing rivers. BTW, all those old towns, roads, RR's, etc now under water behind US dams were usually replaced in better condition than pre-dam. Roads and railroad alignments post-dam are usually of more tangents and broad sweeping curvature than the old riverside alignments. Before all those dams were built on the Columbia, the UP line along there was just curve after rock fall curve. Now it's fast track (albeit congested fast track!) Of course, it is doubtful the Chinese are replacing the old towns and villages with anything to write home about. Stewardship isn't in their lexicon.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith PS the Glen Canyon dam did block a canyon some considered equal in granduer to the Grand Canyon, and its still there....also the Snake, Columbia,Colorado and innumerable western rivers have huge HUGE hyrdo-electric dams all up and down the rivers bottling millions of acres of water behind them covering old towns, roads, RR's etc. The 3 Rivers project in China is just on a bigger scale, and it would never happen here because no one in our government is willing to spend the money on it unless they are getting thier palms and their supporters palms greased in return, either that or it needs a huge wealthy lobbiest group behind it....
QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules In the context of the Chinese project on the Yahn Se - 3500 families is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of families affected in China. And, much of ancient Chinese culture is going to be buried right along with the towns. It is also interesting to note that the problems associated with the dust bowl like poor soil quality due to overfarming, bankrupt farms due to poor soil performance, and a general lack of economy in the area were not rectified by the TVA. Think of it this way - how many people out of work in that area because of farming failures were able to support their families with employment at the TVA? How much of an increase in the areas' industrial base and cheap energy could be attributed to the benefits of the TVA? Did the human suffering that came about because of the TVA project compare to the Yahn se river project in China? If a majority say that they like their new homes and yet were still having problems with economic issues that existed BEFORE the construction is this really suffering attributed to the TVA project or the depression at large? What is the net gain or loss? In China's case the government has decided that relocating hundreds of thousands of people in order to obtain a cheap power source and a wide river capable of freight transport is a worthy trade. My point is that while this may be a good idea on a small scale (the TVA is a brick in a bathtub compared to the Yahn Se business) is it really worth destroying hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives? Would the TVA have proceeded if hundreds of thousands of peoples lives been uprooted? You go from tens of thousands of families to hundreds of thousands of people, implying a family size of 10. Odd considering that Chuna has a law saying you can only have 1 child. BTW. a hundred thousand people is only one one-hundredths of a percent of the population.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb You obviously have never heard of TVA, Hoover dam, the Grand Coulie dam, etc. etc. The TVA dams displaced more people than live in the state of RI. You must of been home sick that day in school.[#oops] None of those ***s misplaced that many people. (Do you have Info??? I make a habit of not believing every thing I hear. I done learnt that in school. [:D]) Also, the U.S. government wasn't out bulldozing cities flat so boats could pass above them after the river filled out. If they did, I am sure there would be a lawsuit or two (don't you think??). The neat thing about communist China is that they can just decree that is what will be done. End of story. Kiss your belongings good-bye. Thank God for the U.S.A. During the depression the good ole' USA could and did what it wanted to for the good of the majority. Here is a link to the TVA history by them. http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/history.htm They condemed peoples land, homes, factories, railroads, whatever was in their way for the good of all. In the seven states surronding the 1,000 mile long Tennessee River Valley if you were in their way you moved. You will notice in their official history there is no mention of anyone being displaced? They all just left by majic. Yet there are still roads that lead to the edge of the lakes and just disapear onward towards the towns that are underwater. China is just 80 years behind us but learning fast.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb You obviously have never heard of TVA, Hoover dam, the Grand Coulie dam, etc. etc. The TVA dams displaced more people than live in the state of RI. You must of been home sick that day in school.[#oops] None of those ***s misplaced that many people. (Do you have Info??? I make a habit of not believing every thing I hear. I done learnt that in school. [:D]) Also, the U.S. government wasn't out bulldozing cities flat so boats could pass above them after the river filled out. If they did, I am sure there would be a lawsuit or two (don't you think??). The neat thing about communist China is that they can just decree that is what will be done. End of story. Kiss your belongings good-bye. Thank God for the U.S.A.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb You obviously have never heard of TVA, Hoover dam, the Grand Coulie dam, etc. etc. The TVA dams displaced more people than live in the state of RI. You must of been home sick that day in school.[#oops]
QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc From the NYT: "SHANGMA HUANGTOU, China — When Wei Yong returned home to his ancestral village last year to visit his 77-year-old mother, he heard about the tremors. Late one night, the residents told him, the village was rocked by what everyone thought was an earthquake. The ground shook. The houses trembled. And the earth cracked open. "Liu Run told me her walls were about to cave in," Mr. Wei said. "My sister says everywhere is sinking. She won't even let the dog roam free at night." "There was no earthquake, however. Instead, here in this small village in the central province of Shanxi, three large coal mining operations had been burrowing underground for coal — day and night, sometimes with dynamite. And from far below, they had cracked the earth. "The village of Shangma Huangtou is just the latest victim of a coal mining boom that is devastating large swaths of north China, where some of the nation's richest coal deposits lie. China is the world's largest producer of coal, and much of it is mined here. "While Shanxi provides the fuel that powers China's sizzling economy, thousands of acres of land are sinking because of the ravages of underground coal mining." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/business/worldbusiness/23sinking.html? Dave
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz WASHINGTON - The Earth is running a slight fever from greenhouse gases, after enjoying relatively stable temperatures for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences, after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the past two millennia, said Thursday the data are "additional supporting evidence ... that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."
QUOTE: Other new research showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers. Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850. Their conclusions were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. It had compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures — a 1 degree rise in global average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the 20th century — and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability. "This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change." The academy panel said it had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600.
QUOTE: But it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.
QUOTE: Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations had the biggest effects on climate. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, the panel said.
QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain Okay, daring to be dumb here. Some questions. This report talks about surface temperatures. What about temperatures higher up in the atmosphere? Is there no way to determine their past nature compared with today? And do they have more of an impact on overall climate? This whole existence we're part of is dynamic. We can't hold time still. In terms of eras of time, carbon moves back and forth from solid states to gaseous states. How are we to know what is "liveable"? As far as we can predict, the Earth will use up its core heat eventually, and turn into a cold rock like our neighboring planets. To aspire into the future, should we as humans focus more on developing ways of existing that are not tied to living conditions on Earth?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.