The Aus government is working it's way to being a U.S. state. We are making our military hardware compatible with theirs, we are fighting in stupid profit based wars that go against the international community with them. They don't hand over their war criminals for international trial, and now they expect everyone around the world to respect their laws. Americas international standing is reducing every day. And judging by the media driven fear of the outside they are cultivating and the laughable democratic system and a retard for a president, they are well on the way to being the worst totalitarian state out there. We have the names of U.S states and capitals rammed down our necks by countless TV shows and movies and they don't even know we have states.
I hope Iran/China/N. Korea gets some US citizens extradited too as part of this new high in international cooperation.
You are right it may be the same thing causing warming here, but there is no evidence to say that it is and a lot of evidence against it.
Solar radiation is being monitored and accounted for here on earth (by satellites).
The artical states that the measurements indicating the thawing of the polar ice caps are only for 3 or so years and the combination of martian orbital etc cycles makes this a small part of a longer period of cycles. So its like watching the second hand of a clock for 3 seconds and assuming that it is travelling in a straight line off the clock face, when what it is really doing is going around in a circle.
About Al gore :
Using energy is a totally morally defensible act. If you can afford it use it - it falls from the sky every day in abundance.
Using energy from fossil fuels however is not morally defensible (one could argue especially by Al Gore).
I think it is quite certain that Al Gore - who has spent a lot of his precious short time here on earth promoting awareness on climate change - would be using energy from non fossil fuel sources.
And no you can't tell where the electrons came from when you buy renewable energy - but then you aren't paying for electrons - you are paying for energy.
So your point about a rich man using lots of energy is childish and regrettable.
Your off the cuff - quick calculations on on the complex system called climate, although worthy of encouragment, are not likely to be more accurate than those by professional scientists who publish peer reviewed papers etc.
Forest fires don't count because the carbon was in the earths system already.
Assuming the trees grow back again they will sequester the carbon back out of the air to do so.
They would have fallen over and rotted and eventually anyway.
If however humans cut down or burn the trees and then don't replace them, then that contributes to global warming.
The only place in the world where there is still significant debate on whether global warming is caused by CO2 emissions is the USA. This is probably because their news is insular they have a significant proportion of the population that are blatantly unscientfic (creationists etc) and they produce most of the world CO2 and its going to require massive changes to lifestyle. That SUV will not be worth much etc.
Global warming is proven to be anthropogenic, beyond all reasonable doubts. The IPCC has said that it is 90% likely - and they have to obtain consensus from all of the worlds members, which means that their statementst are very conservative.
With a complex system like the Earth, we will never ever know conclusively whether we are to blame for global warming. But if we are 90% certain that means we are logical to act right now.
Your position was untenable circa 1990, now it is plainly irrational and ridiculous.
Most houses are insured - the likeley hood of a claim is less than 1 %.
I don't understand how a human brain can actually consider the facts at 90% likely hood and fail to act.
Your points are probably all correct, but what you have failed to mention is that all these changes happened over thousands, sometimes millions of years.
The current human induced changes are happening over next decades.
Nature can adapt over the former timescales but not over decades.
Complex ecosystems will be distroyed - Great barrier reef amazon rainforest etc.
Rats, cocroaches, pigeons and humans will probably survive.
Is that the kind of world you want to live in ?
The last time something like this happened, the dinosaurs went extinct and the dominant life form on the planet was fungus for thousands of years.
Slashdot Mirror
The Aus government is working it's way to being a U.S. state.
We are making our military hardware compatible with theirs, we are fighting in stupid profit based wars that go against the international community with them.
They don't hand over their war criminals for international trial, and now they expect everyone around the world to respect their laws.
Americas international standing is reducing every day. And judging by the media driven fear of the outside they are cultivating and the laughable democratic system and a retard for a president, they are well on the way to being the worst totalitarian state out there.
We have the names of U.S states and capitals rammed down our necks by countless TV shows and movies and they don't even know we have states.
I hope Iran/China/N. Korea gets some US citizens extradited too as part of this new high in international cooperation.
You are right it may be the same thing causing warming here, but there is no evidence to say that it is and a lot of evidence against it.
Solar radiation is being monitored and accounted for here on earth (by satellites).
The artical states that the measurements indicating the thawing of the polar ice caps are only for 3 or so years and the combination of martian orbital etc cycles makes this a small part of a longer period of cycles. So its like watching the second hand of a clock for 3 seconds and assuming that it is travelling in a straight line off the clock face, when what it is really doing is going around in a circle.
You obviously did not read the artical.
It quite easily refutes this as evidence for anything at all to do with climate change on earth.
About Al gore : Using energy is a totally morally defensible act. If you can afford it use it - it falls from the sky every day in abundance.
Using energy from fossil fuels however is not morally defensible (one could argue especially by Al Gore).
I think it is quite certain that Al Gore - who has spent a lot of his precious short time here on earth promoting awareness on climate change - would be using energy from non fossil fuel sources.
And no you can't tell where the electrons came from when you buy renewable energy - but then you aren't paying for electrons - you are paying for energy. So your point about a rich man using lots of energy is childish and regrettable. Your off the cuff - quick calculations on on the complex system called climate, although worthy of encouragment, are not likely to be more accurate than those by professional scientists who publish peer reviewed papers etc.
Forest fires don't count because the carbon was in the earths system already.
Assuming the trees grow back again they will sequester the carbon back out of the air to do so.
They would have fallen over and rotted and eventually anyway.
If however humans cut down or burn the trees and then don't replace them, then that contributes to global warming.
The only place in the world where there is still significant debate on whether global warming is caused by CO2 emissions is the USA. This is probably because their news is insular they have a significant proportion of the population that are blatantly unscientfic (creationists etc) and they produce most of the world CO2 and its going to require massive changes to lifestyle. That SUV will not be worth much etc.
Global warming is proven to be anthropogenic, beyond all reasonable doubts. The IPCC has said that it is 90% likely - and they have to obtain consensus from all of the worlds members, which means that their statementst are very conservative.
With a complex system like the Earth, we will never ever know conclusively whether we are to blame for global warming. But if we are 90% certain that means we are logical to act right now. Your position was untenable circa 1990, now it is plainly irrational and ridiculous. Most houses are insured - the likeley hood of a claim is less than 1 %. I don't understand how a human brain can actually consider the facts at 90% likely hood and fail to act.
Your points are probably all correct, but what you have failed to mention is that all these changes happened over thousands, sometimes millions of years. The current human induced changes are happening over next decades. Nature can adapt over the former timescales but not over decades. Complex ecosystems will be distroyed - Great barrier reef amazon rainforest etc. Rats, cocroaches, pigeons and humans will probably survive. Is that the kind of world you want to live in ? The last time something like this happened, the dinosaurs went extinct and the dominant life form on the planet was fungus for thousands of years.