Everything seems to be getting more polarized lately, and global warming is no different. Facts suggested by opposing sides don't seem to change anyone's mind. This subject is sold on emotion just as TV commercials, and politicians are sold to us as well. Our ego, and identity become intertwined with our opinions, and then too much is on the line to accept a different point of view. Just as happens in the Patch comment sections, it usually breaks down to personal attacks, and mudslinging.

So, why do you believe in global warming? The single most common answer I have received after breaking through all the barriers  boils down to "because they say so."  Is their anyone that can state anything beyond "because they say so"

If you don't believe in Manmade global warming, can you state why?

If anyone can, great. I am simply trying to learn more, and ask questions. I am not here to argue, and hurl insults. If your only method of communication is as described, do it somewhere else. If you want to give your opinion, ask questions, and learn, welcome

A LITTLE BACKGROUND OF GLOBAL WARMING (To the best of my knowledge)

Most of the theory is based on computer models. The models are complicated,  but basically state that more C02 will cause warming, which will then cause more water vapor in the air which basically triples the original C02 effect. This is called the positive feedback loop.

Some things don't' make it to the front pages of global warming debate, such as orbital cycles ocean current cycles, and Sun cycles.

The recent history, ( last two thousand years) we have had a significant warming, called, "Medieval warm period", and a colder time called "The Little ice age". The pro, and con debate of the two periods are if they were hemispheric, or global.

In the long period, (millions of years) their have been severe ice ages, and warming. During these time a fairly close correlation of C02 rising and falling with global temperatures is agreed. But causation is reversed almost every time. That means that the rise in C02 came AFTER warming, not before, and by about 800 years on average.

Glaciers are shrinking, and have been doing so for 300 years

The seas are rising, but have been doing so for 12,000 years.

It has warmed a little, and has been doing so since coming out of the little ice age around 1750, a hundred years before the industrial revolution.

The computer models that state the C02 ...warming....then more water vapor feedback uses what is described as empirical evidence for the C02, but as yet I have never read, or had anyone able to point out where their is empirical evidence for the water vapor feedback. This is very critical.

If anyone wants I can provide links for any of the above.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

peter crowley June 09, 2014 at 07:26 PM
Fortified, I think its an unwise gamble to bet against the majority of scientists and ignore their warnings. If we reduce carbon emissions, it will help us in many ways, regardless of whether we reduce the risk of climate cataclysm. If we ignore the warnings and continue to pour carbon into the atmosphere, it may turn out to be the single stupidest act in human history. If you assess the risks, it is obvious that a smart gambler would consider the downside and make some effort to cut carbon emissions.
Fortified- I am Buzzlightyear >>>>>>>> June 09, 2014 at 07:51 PM
PETER: June 09, 2014 at 07:26 PM : If we reduce carbon emissions, it will help us in many ways, regardless of whether we reduce the risk of climate cataclysm ____________________________________________________ Can you state what harm C02 does if we take away the Global warming issue?
peter crowley June 09, 2014 at 08:39 PM
Fortified, most of the man-made systems that produce carbon emissions produce many other undesirable pollutants: Carbon monoxide, soot, heavy metals, etc. So, even if CO2 were entirely benign, it would be beneficial to reduce its production by these systems. Beyond that, even if you ignore the predicted climate effects of excessive CO2, there is also the effect on acidification of the ocean.
Fortified- I am Buzzlightyear >>>>>>>> June 16, 2014 at 01:47 AM
OK. Of course pollutants should always be reduced when possible. Peter, the following email is meant for fun. It does not mean anything for the global warming debate. Its funny. It was a T.V. show in 1977. ____________________________________________________ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M&feature=kp
Fortified- I am Buzzlightyear >>>>>>>> June 16, 2014 at 02:00 AM
THIS ONE IS INTERESTING. I started with the intention of giving some links about scientists who think we are now entering another "little ice age" like we had a few hundred years ago. I found this article from the Huffington Post. Something else caught my eye. Their is a graph that shows sunspot cycles from about 1600 to present. Notice the cycles closely match the global temperatures, and cycles on Earth. Notice the lowest sun output was also in the little ice age period. Notice the general rise from 1800, along with the 60 years cycles. Notice the rise from 1900. Take out the one anomaly. Notice the low into the 1970's, as scientists feared a coming ice age. Notice the rise up until 1998, and fast drop, which coincides perfectly with the peak in temps, and plateau in temps since then. ........ Now how can it possibly be one long coincidence? ____________________________________________________ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/solar-lull-little-ice-age-sun-scientists_n_4645248.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »