Global Warming?

Have you ever walked into a greenhouse on a sunny day?

<unsubscribe>

I never knew about the heat sink

That's because space is not a heat sink, space is a vacuum, which is a thermal INSULATOR.

Remember the Thermos(r) bottle? the inside was all silvery and shiny? What you are seeing is the inside wall of a vacuum bottle, a glass bottle (topologically speaking, it is a hollow sphere with a deep indent, the liquids you pour 'into' the bottle are in the indent, which is 'outside' the bottle. It may sound confusing, but google up a cut-away of a thermos bottle and you'll understand.), silver-plated on the inside, and the air pumped out, creating a vacuum. It keeps your coffee/soup hot or your beverage cold by preventing the three forms of heat transfer:

• Conduction: Glass is very poor at conducting heat, you can head one end of a glass rod to molten temperatures, yet the other end will still be cool to the touch.
• Radiation: the silver plating reflects infrared radiation back at the source, preventing the energy/heat from passing through the bottle wall.
• Convection: (This is the important one for this discussion) The vacuum in the bottle prevents the air outside the bottle from contacting the air or liquid inside the bottle, and prevents the air from touching the 'inside wall' of the bottle, so there is no heat transfer between the air and the thermos's contents.

One thing people fail to realize about space suits is that the innermost layer, the part that comes right of to the astronauts Fruit of the Looms, is a COOLING suit. On earth we are all walking around inside our own personal 'heat plumes' as the air in contact with our bodies warms up, rises and is replaced by cooler air from below. (This is also the reason for the 'Wind Chill' factor, we feel colder on windy days in winter because the wind is 'peeling away' our heat plumes, leaving us exposed to the actual air temperatures rather than the 'moderated' air temperatures we normally feel. It's also why a breeze, ANY breeze feels good on hot days, even if we're not sweating. In warmer weather our heat plumes work against us, keeping our heads wrapped up in air that's already been heated up by our legs and torsos. It also explains why lying down in hot weather helps: when we're horizontal, we're not using the 'waste heat' from our bodies to warm up our heads.)

I would recommend that the OP pick up a High School General Science book and read through it. But NOT one of the books that spends a lot of time talking about the 'alternate theories' to Evolution.Those books will likely be skewing the other science points to confuse people rather than educate. Climate change deniers LIVE to spread confusion, it's the only way they can get their message heard with 'equal weight' to the the scientific community that is saying "the planet is warming, we're not sure of ALL the causes, but we're reasonably confident that human activity is a significant factor."

Climate change deniers are like a bus driver careening down a mountain path like he' late for work, and wanting to debate about how steep the bend is on Dead man's Curve, or even if it's curved at all, when he could just take his foot off the gas pedal.

looks like you can put me in your deny camp"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Why would I go to a financial magazine to get information on science? Do I go to a botanist to get information on the Bonds market?

http://nypost.com/2015/01/08/the-lessons-of-climate-change-past/

Here is another one.

You can pick and choose what you want to accept. You've picked a side and choose to only accept information that agrees with your point of view. Even if I'd pulled either of these articles from a Science Magazine, you'd find something to be in disagreement with it.

I just consider Forbes, a magazine for 'people who like to think they are rich,'tends to bias their articles to show anything that is turning a profit as 'good for the bottom line, therefore good for the world.'

And I'm not saying "Conservation or DIE, Capitalist pig-dogs!" I'm saying "Let's just give Conservation it an honest try and see how things look after 5-10 years."

Is this really such a hot-button topic that we can't just talk rationally about setting up an experiment about it? Everyone argues about the data, the Deniers point to the Little Ice Age in the Late Medieval period as 'proof' that warming and cooling are 'just cycles,' while the 'Warmers' point out that the Little Ice Age came LATE for the cycle, and wasn't as strong as models say it should have been, pointing out the change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age coincided with the Black Death, and the 'sudden' reverting of so much tilled farmland into fallow fields. Claiming that as 'proof' that Europe was holding off a cooling cycle, changing the climate, until so many died off that we 'weren't strong enough to hold back nature' any more. Everyone argues, but so few are willing to try and TEST the theories, and these tests, because we don't have a 'mini-earth' to play with, have to be done large-scale, which means we need practically EVERYONE in the 'testing zone' to work together on this.

I admire your passion. I'm a man of science. the JUNK SCIENCE you base your opinion on is a mantra of skewed fact. I will not berate or demean you but I suggest you listen to less activists and politicians and open your mind to scientists without an axe to grind or new tax proposal

""Is this really such a hot-button topic that we can't just talk rationally about setting up an experiment about it? " The experiment proposed by the president has already been performed. During the Great Depression fossil fuel use, mainly coal, decreased by about 30%. This was the period of greatest rate of global warming! Those who repeat an experiment, expecting a different result, are insane, we are told.

The "Great Depression" could not possibly have influenced global climates and certainly not global warming!

It may have reduced air pollution, but that's all.

Think about it.

20 years out of 6,000,000,000 hardly can change anything.

Just to pick a nit with you not to argue against your over all point....the Great Depression was not 20 years.

The GD began 1929. The US was coming out of the GD or brought out of it by WWII which was 1941 (when the US officially entered). By my non-calculator calculating, that's only 12 years.

20/6,000,000,000

12/6,000,000,000

Now there is a good post: (1)Propose exactly what someone else "in power" has suggested, (2) demonstrate that the proposed idea has already been tested, and (3)demonstrate that the sought after outcome of the "agenda" crowd has already been disproven in spades, and (4) reveal the insanity of it all.

Great job!!!

Anybody can type words.

Does he have any data to back up his baseless claims?

A desired goal of any experiment should be that it is repeatable. If it's not repeatable, then something was either done improperly or the parameters involved are not completely understood.

I'm not in favor of redoing the experiment you mention, however, I don't even consider it an experiment. Yes, there's history there we should not ignore, but at the time, no one set out to do an experiment demonstrating that reduction in carbon results in cooling.

Google 'fears of global warming were greatly exaggerated.

That heat sink is a good place to wash hands in winter!

But I do know about the hot tub

what happens in the hot tub stays in the hot tub

Just relaxing sore, stiff muscles after a long day of skiing of course.

The hotter an object is, the more heat it radiates.

An object receiving energy will heat up until the radiates as much energy as it is receiving.

If an object is less efficent at radiating heat (e.g. greenhouse), it will have to be hotter to radiate as much energy as it is receiving.

The author of this article in Forbes makes an interesting point:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

I thought I was the first one to have that article. I just posted it again.

One of the reasons that 'global warming' has seemed so scary was that, at one time, scientists thought that the high temperature of Venus was due to a 'runaway greenhouse effect' due to its CO₂ atmosphere. More recent data shows that this is not the cause of the high temperatures on Venus. I.e., the high temperature of Venus is NOT caused by the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is almost 100% CO₂, but rather the fact that the atmospheric pressure of the CO₂ on Venus is very high.

Despite this new understanding, some people continue to cling to the idea of a 'runaway greenhouse effect' as a means to scare people into accepting the notion of catastrophic global warming.

Here's a fairly easy to read paper that runs the numbers:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWvenus.htm

Agreed. It's easy to scare people with the high surface temperature of Venus. But every engineer knows that if you compress a gas, it gets hotter, and if you reduce the pressure it gets colder. So if the atmosphere of Venus circulates, the high surface temperature is mostly due to compression and not due to the "greenhouse" effect.

It's why mountains on Earth have snow on top.

"It's why mountains on Earth have snow on top."

Yeah. That and the fact that it's colder up ther .... Oh, wait (slaps forehead), that's what you just said, isn't it?

Duh. What, not greenhouse gases? And no lasting Ozone hole? My fondest fantasies, shot to ribbons, in one post.

Too bad explaining science doesn't work on Al Gore, George Soros, et al. Nor the "man in the street".

Your container of compressed argon heated up when it was compressed, and then the heat was removed (dissipated) to the surrounding atmosphere.

Consider a packet of air in the upper atmosphere of Venus. As it moves down, it is compressed and heated, but it can't cool off again because the surrounding atmosphere is the same temperature. It's as if it were perfectly insulated because no heat will flow without a temperature difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

A planet's atmosphere is not perfectly isolated from its ground, plus all matter, including gases, also exchange heat by radiation. You don't need convection (conduction or advection) for that. Now don't take it personally. We are all bombarded with erroneous, incomplete of fraudulent data all the time, and according to my dark, conspiracy-like, latest beliefs, for a reason.(LOL) S.M.

Global warming sure isn't happening enough lately where I live, but there again every winter is about the same here. Cold, followed by calm sunny afternoon, followed by a blue norther.

We are all still alive so far, and that is a good thing. I will look forward to some more global warming every day when the sun comes out.

I am all for anything that creates more jobs than it destroys. The problem with some folks is they want to starve us out in the cold (or heat), in order to "save the planet". What the hell are you going to save the planet for if no one survives your cure?

Well the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen to high levels and this started speculation on causes and effects...Everything is always changing and the puzzle has countless pieces, so there is many opinions ranging from one extreme to the other...One thing we can measure is the effects and changes taking place....

http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/impacts/signs/glaciers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

As we gather more data and develop more sophisticated models, some day we might figure it all out....We know our existence here is by chance and precarious, let's hope we can stay one step ahead of whatever would destroy us....

As CO2 levels rise, the greenies as well flourished.

Please read some Geologic Journals that show the increase and decrease of Glaciers over the longer periods of time. The Glaciers were all the way down into Nebraska. They are no longer there. Must be they retreated…or something…. CO2 concentrations were higher during this period of thick glaciation. Please read some Geologic History, look at the Volstok Ice Core info, and get some different viewpoints. The retreat from hot to cold has actually occurred in a period of 3 years of less, as verified by the algae traces, dust samples, tree rings and ice cores. THREE years is a very short period of time. Now data is coming out that suggest the Mayan culture may have gone by the wayside due to a multi year drought. Now, that is climate change , or a long term weather cycle due to the moisture pattens at the Tropical latitudes being disrupted for a very long period of time. We tend to think that temperature keeping records of 100 years really mean something in the overall trend of the Planet. Satellite data has only existed for really 30 years or so. How do you compare this data to Geologic data that has existed for many millions of years? According to many of the "Unreported " Scientists, get ready for the Big Chill, which will do more damage than any amount of "Global Warming"...

because..........you can't tax a glacier but if convince people the world will end unless you tax the most basic element, carbon then you justify your position.

its all a crock!

"The thing that bothers me most about it is the crying over species that will be lost."

You ever listen to the subtext of all that crying? There's one species in particular that the the Global Warming community is concerned about losing. You may even have heard of it:

Homo Sapiens.

It's not about saving the Ice Caps, or the Polar Bear, or the Rain Forrests.

It's about saving OUR OWN KEISTERS! The 'hippie' keisters, the 'fat cat' keisters, your keister, my keister, the keisters of generations of H. Sapiens to come. I don't know if you care about your own keister, but I happen to like mine (even though it could be a bit more toned, but that's beside the point), and I'd like to keep it on this planet for as long as possible.

Really???? We've proven to be the most adaptable advanced life form on the planet. Yeah, single cell life forms beat us at adaptability, but not mammals or reptiles. We engineer the ways to survive and do just fine. We have people living in arctic barrens and in deserts now.

Don't see that much danger mentioned for us, unless we just sit and do nothing. (this is the basic premise of the disaster folks - show what happens without human change of life style - don't even mention adapting to the changes)

The seas rise - so we move inland. The storms get more severe - so again we move where they are less, because there will be areas of decreased storms as well. Large areas of drought appear - guess what - warming will also create new areas of rain forests. Northern Canada can become the new "bread basket". Again we move to these areas. I think we've done this before and can do that again. Cows can't survive - we learn to eat lizards and gators that will flourish. And so on, and so on.....

"We engineer the ways to survive and do just fine."

So why not try to engineer ways to keep the global climate where we like it? Wouldn't that be the pinnacle of Man's Dominance over Nature: to tell the World what the climate will be, instead of going back to a 'pseudo-nomadic' lifestyle, chasing(1) after the arable land?

Notes:

1) The speed of the 'chase' would be slow, like how the glaciers 'raced' South, and the Hickory trees were 'running' ahead of the ice walls to warmer climates. However, in the Old World, the trees 'ran into' the mountain ranges and were trapped, while in America, the mountain ranges were 'set up the right way' and the Hickory was able to 'winter out' the Ice Age down by the Gulf.

Yes but now we are back to the question of is this a normal earth cycle or a man made one. Seems foolish to run energy costs way up if it has no real benefits to anyone except those who develop and sell the newer higher priced energy. Is it easier to hate Big Oil, than Big Solar, or Big Wind, or whatever? A drastic sudden change is going to make some few very rich and most very poor.

"A drastic sudden change is going to make some few very rich and most very poor."

That's what we have on this planet right now: a very few that are very rich, and most are poor to very poor. The only losers in this scenario are the few of the very rich who will end up poor. A few poor will become rich, but most will stay the same.

And before you go thinking I hate Big Oil simply because they're Big Oil, my JOB depends on them. I work in plastics, so we need oil as the feedstock to make the polymers we use. That's why I'm against Big Oil's quashing of alternate energy: the less oil we burn for fuel, the more we'll have for feedstock supply.

"the pinnacle of Man's Dominance over Nature"

Or a display of pure and unmitigated arrogance against the Creator of it all, while worshiping and serving the Creation!

So what? What makes US so important?

What makes you think we are so special. Maybe just maybe Homo Sapiens is not to be a part of the future.

If we keep doing what we're doing now and if we keep doing what we've always done, That practically assures that Homo Sapiens will not be a part of the future.

or not......

interesting to know that it wouldn't be the first time Homo Sapiens had a near brush with extinction.

statistically, no matter what you do, someday they just may get it right.

Hey, it's worked so far!

Strange, I watched the Bell Science Series episode "Our Mr. Sun" in high school and there was no mention of "Global Warming". But then, we didn't have air conditioning which removed heat from inside the building and put it out side to be added to the heat produced by power plants among other devices consuming fossil fuels.

Another contributor is the use of italicized capital letters.

A benefit of this is a good day at the beach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEfomqnif34

Man, what a time machine! Complete with scratches. Thanks Solar!

Lets look at what has happened in the last 100 years.

• Most buildings have air conditioning pushing out hot air.
• We have a huge increase in inefficient power stations to accommodate this and increased industry - more heat.
• Many more buildings and roads to absorb and store heat.
• In the centre of this heat mass are thermometers telling us there is an increase in temperature. DAH!

And it's only 1 degree (or 2 in the US), I think we are doing very well to contain it to that!

Tony

Just read an article yesterday, that from Satellite measurement, the primary source of carbon dioxide production into the atmosphere is coming from the compost on the rain forest floor in South America.

I'm sure Al Gore will want to tax that too

Algae is up there also, and so is decomposition of Permafrost…Not to mention those´pesky farts...

I think we should apply for a grant to study the effects of human farts on the ozone.

That idea stinks!

all kidding aside, I've posted this before... if you aren't interested in taking sides but are interested in science and facts instead of individual opinion. here you'll find some real answershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w enjoy

If Dupont held the patent for the composition of human farts, you could probably get your grant.The study could be used to outlaw current farts when their patent runs out. The new government mandated farts will be more flammable though.

This is an Engineering forum, so let's look at this situation logically. I'm sure many of you are familiar with Game Theory (or if you aren't, you can look it up on wikipedia), a/d or you're familiar with digital logic 'truth tables' (Showing the outputs for a specified set of inputs) and Karnough Maps (a version of a truth tale where the inputs are along the side and top, with the outputs inside the grid).

Let is consider the two main variables in The Great Global Warming Debate:

• Global Warming is affected by human activity -vs- Global Warming is NOT affected by human activity.
• Humans should try to reduce their effect on Global Warming -vs- Humans should NOT try to reduce their effect on Global Warming.

Now let us build the Game Theory Chart. It looks like a Karnov Map, with the 'output' inside the grid:

H = Human Activity affects Global Warming

h = Human Activity does NOT affect Global Warming

R = Humans try to reduce effect on Global Warming

r = Humans do NOT try to reduce effect on Global Warming

\|H|h

R|A|B

r|B|B

Results:

A = Global Warming is reduced

B = Global Warming is NOT reduced.

So from here we can see that if we try to reduce emissions, recycle more, etc, we MAY 'save the planet' (aka, save our own keisters) and we may not, but if we just keep on with the status quo, we're DEFINITELY going to be screwed.

So, I ask, why NOT act as if our activities can affect Global Warming and do what we can to try and reduce it? What's the worst that can happen following that route? We waste time and energy on something we can't change? So what? A person neck deep in the ovean, with nothing but water to every horizon, is still going to splash and fight for every breath, even though he knows he's going to drown before the sun sets. It's in our NATURE to 'waste time and energy' fighting for survival. There's an old saying I heard, "If you find yourself falling off a cliff, flap your arms and try to fly. It can't make things worse, and you just might find out you CAN fly."

The only reason I can think of to be so adamant on denying the human factor in Climate Change/Global Warming is a link to Big Oil/Big Coal, and not caring about the future, only about short-term profits. This planet does not NEED or WANT more Gordon Gekos, we have way too many as is.

we could do just fine with a few less Chicken Littles

How about the effect on humans from trying to go to non-fossil fuel based energy sources? I've never seen that scenario examined closely. Just as the warming theorists have their doomsday scenario, I think I can construct a similar one for trying to go to non-fossil fuels quickly.

Right now we have a reasonably cheap source of energy that most can afford. (I really like $2.50/gallon gasoline) You want to change that scenario so that the poorest countries get even poorer as they can't afford to build the latest "green" energy source, and the fossil fuels are not so readily available anymore? Yes, at first, if the major economic power countries switched suddenly away from fossil fuels, they would become cheap. But as refineries shut down, the price of useable fossil fuels (refined) would sky rocket, via the supply/demand equation. Then there are the income fixed elderly, and welfare recipients in the the major economic power countries - think they want to suddenly have to start paying much more just to heat their houses? Ever consider what going to solar/wind/wave/whatever energy source everywhere and suddenly would do to the cost of living? I think that scenario is about as bad as the global warming theory. Major wars, rebellions, starvation.....

If the major economic countries switched away from fossil fuels, the refineries wouldn't 'shut down,' they'd keep running, selling the refined fuel to the smaller countries that still use it. It's cheaper to ship refined fuel than to build a new refinery. (Plus the US has laws banning the export of 'crude oil,' it HAS to be refined to a certain level before it's sent out.) You think ExxonMobil is just going to say "Oh well, America's not using oil anymore, time to shut the doors and tun off the lights, we're out of business."? No, if there's money to be made, you can bet the corporations well be there, making sure they get their share, and half of their neighbor's share as well.

I'd LOVE to see more alternate energy sources examined, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactors. There are many options, but it seems like Congress can't get permission from their corporate masters agree on a budget that would allow for serious R&D on these fields, and it's almost impossible to get the venture capital to develop these fields in the private sector, when it's questionable whether or not a particular major project will be able to turn a profit quickly enough to justify the investment.

Yes, they will shut down many refineries if suddenly the demand drops more than 50%. They know supply and demand in the oil industry quite well. The price for much less refined fuel will skyrocket - the Exxon Mobiles of the world will see to it.
Those 50 plus year old plants in the Northeast will be gone very quickly.

So why didn't they shut refineries down NOW, so they could keep gasoline at $4+ a gallon? They could claim that the refineries need to go down 'for scheduled maintenance' and choke us down to the rationing of the Oil Embargo of the early 80's.

What's to keep them from telling us "You'll pay twenty bucks a gallon and like it!" today? They're Big Oil, they can weather a little time of 'reduced profits (and since it also includes reduced payroll/operating costs from the shuttered refineries, they may even break even for the Fiscal Quarter instead of showing a loss), while we'll be crawling in the mud and groveling for 'just a little fuel, it' so cold here, so ... cold...'

They have greatly reduced the "oil patch" work force already. I know plenty of oil field hands who've been laid off in NW Pa. No drilling for the near future and many wells shut in. Refineries don't have to shut down - they cut back production while the ones shut down are in the field. Bleak times ahead for this corner of the state for a while.

Are you serious? You are afraid of CO2 and F2? wow.

Wonderful thoughts, but not grounded in reality.

This discussion has been beat ad nausium and unless there is some breaking news that changes things significantly it is just a shouting match with no resolutions.

If you don't believe that, just look at all of the historical discussion on the subject on CR4.

Amen. So we will just have to wait because nobody gets off this merry-go-round alive.

There is thermo nuclear activity all over the earth, and has been for 4.5 B years. This is in the form of fission AND fusion (via LENR sub-atomic chemistry). This will provide energy for another few billion years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igjsojobNE this pretty much covers my view

After all we all just here for a little while, contributing to the effort to make plastic for Mother Earth.

I am actually storing up plastic bags, so that my bones can be buried with them.

That's the idea. But George still believes (or doesn't say otherwise for a reason) that all this, and the "industry" behind it, is just based on innocent mistakes. My opinion is that it is based on 100% scam, it's just that many people's good feelings are shamelessly exploited, with support from totally fake "science". I have no problem about naive people believing something in "error", it happened again and again in human history, but having scum victims helping the scums themselves to enforce their idea fascism just to thicken their wallets is not something I can cope with. Who said that in info age we 'd have less real info issues? S.M.

For the sake of my sanity (and what remains of the things that pass for 'friendships' here on a semi-annonymous message board) I'm going to bow out of this. It's getting way to political, people are starting to wear their party affiliations on their sleeves and line up like the Jets and the Sharks (go see West Side Story if you don't get that reference) and I've already let myself get so caught up in the argument I ended up making an ad hominim attack on a person I respect, the fact that it was in response to an ad hominim from him nonwithstanding.

This will be my last post in this thread before unsubscribing, and I will not be replying to any replies to this. If there is anyone here who I may have offended and not yet apologized to, I am sorry.

(*grumble* This is why I hate politics, brings out the fanatics in too many people: can't change their mind and won't change the subject.)

I have been surprised at the n and status of the denyers. It also surprises me that the word believe/belief comes up so often. It seems that science is now a religion with many sects within.

I am not a scientist but I do know that there are 10's of thousands of scientists in almost every field that have reported changes that are disturbing to them. As good scientists they have formulated theories to explain the observations and OTHER scientists have tested their theories. The results have led an ever widening net of scientists to state that human activity is having a deleterious effect on the planet and it's organisms. Where this will ultimately lead is unknown and indeed this where I think the believe/deny debate thrives. A lot of the scare mongering was purely to get funding for further research, after all the scientists and universities want to be fed. This did a lot of damage to the credibility of scientists in general as the forecast theoretical disasters could be easily counter theorized. As a simple example;- "the polar caps will melt causing the oceans to rise" can be countered with the equally sensational;- "all of the UK and western Europe will be covered with 3Km of ice" I would argue that one will counter act the other. The end result would be that we have more English here in Oz, For that reason alone I implore you to act now to prevent any worsening of the effects of GW. :-)

The hole in the Ozone layer is a forgotten example of how human activity DID affect the climate and equally of how Gov't regulation DID help repair the damage. I am sure fishermen the world over could tell of change in their own lifetime as testament to just how much the activity of man can alter the planet. Of course the planet itself can do far more damage to man in a far shorter time, Tsunami, hurricane, volcanoes etc. but do we need to retaliate?

Jim

I see you enjoy a glass of Koolaid from time to time.this forum hits this topic every month or two. people get passionate. some even leave! I don't think most people that have looked into it feel that humans are completely free of adding to some warming by burning all the things we emit. for me its the overblown claims that are designed to scare.our pal AL gore has been a highly visible cheerleader for your cause. Al famously made the claim, "all the sea ice will be gone by 2015". about a month ago I posted satellite data showing record thickness for sea Ice in Antarctica this year.weather is extremely complex science. no one has it down just yet but those with "end of life as we know it"predictions always turn out to be far from accurate.

so yes humans have some culpability but CO2 and this planet have coexisted for millions of years. relax

The term refers to people who have been "brainwashed" by fanatics.

Jim Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has come to be used as a derogatory term for people who do not share your view on issues such as global warming, or other political disagreements/issues.

No offence taken. I would like to be able to assist you to change your opinion but as it is opinion and not hard knowledge it is difficult to change. I too have an opinion only. All i can do is say how i arrived at my position;

For over 30 yrs now there has been a science show on Oz TV. Many a scientist came on and explained their study in one episode and then returned some years later. The later episode explained that things were rapidly going downhill for their 'pets' and they were confused as to what was happening now, that had never happened before. Some years later they would return again and explain that greenhouse gases were the likely cause. Years later another scientist would be looking at changes through geologic time and note that it is only in the last 100 yrs that 'x' has ever happened. The climate change theory is now introduced and we see many scientists returning to their papers and re-examining the phenomena they had previously recorded and seeing supporting evidence for the "Climate Change" theory. The theory as i understand it predicts that the change will be a warming. There is already a global dieing off of trees that are hundreds of years old. Any acceleration of this phenomenon will be dire for humans but great for bacteria, mold and algae. So not all bad news, eh? In summation i say again; 10's of thousands of scientists are in agreement that GW ( specifically Climate Change ) is real and needs to be addressed. I can only have an opinion based on that.

Jim

invest 12 minuteshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

Actually the hole was found to be a seasonal cyclic phenomenon that is better described as a seasonal thinning in the fall/early winter months followed by full recovery to normal typical global wide DU levels for the other 8 - 10 months of the year.

It's pretty well documented science even though the media has yet to ever let it see the light of day.

First off, there is little or no science involved in the debate. It is all about data collection, and then trying to make sense of the data. Most people start in the late mid to late 19th century. I'm still trying to get reliable data for Antarctica for the period prior to 1911, if any one has it let us know. The North Pole is no problem as Santa Claus and starting in the 1930's Superman have kept accurate readings. Same for Africa, Dr. Livingston's and Lord Greystoke's records are sufficient. Now for the difficult part, making sense of it all. If data collection and the resulting analysis was a valid method, the same formula could be used to predict the stock market, or Powerball Lottery. Either of which have far fewer and better quantified variables than the environment. Try the following experiment, place 100 coins in a pot, remove one without looking to see whether it is "heads or tails". Remove the remaining 99 coins and documenting its state. After analyzing the data, predict the state of the 100th coin. Has anyone ever purchased a mutual fund? Each one has the following disclaimer "past performance does not necessarily predict future results". If a mutual fund where the folks make millions trying to predict the future, can't certify their results of a far simpler system, why shouldn't that apply to everyone else. This does not mean we shouldn't be good stewards of our neighborhoods, but mankind has yet to perfect the perfect energy source. I doubt we ever will. There will always be some far greater issue for future generations to solve as the result of our attempts. Even the UN can't solve this one.