Good news stories about global warming

[conradpdx]

Quote:
BTW- gravity is a theory too.

So are atoms, and time. The term theory, doesn't make it wrong or not fact. You need to do some research into the scientific method. Theory doesn't mean guess. I'm tired of people that always claim that theory=hypothesis.

United States National Academy of Sciences

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

You're and everyone else that says "it's just a theory" are mixing up two different definitions of the same word.​

 

[mjdtexan]

Quote:
Nice to meet another Texan. I hope we can disagree pleasantly. Alice was fairly large.

Did you know that the Earth was only 2 DEGREES cooler than average during the ice age??? What do you think raising the temps by a degree or two will do for us?

I just dont think that is true, I will however, look at any factual evidence you have of that and if I am wrong will promptly admit it to you.

NOT a Republican

Not really sure what that has to do with anything.

The term really isn't "global warming" as much as it is "global change."

Global Warming has been bantered around by the media for quite a while now, only when evidence surfaced that we have cooled down a bit did it change to "global change".

We are in complete ageement that we are poisoning our planet, and we are in agreement that we need to green things up a GREAT DEAL. I'm with you on that.​

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

Quote:
Before you go off on cutting trees and bad mouthing Loggers, you need to sit back and just look at and research EVERYTHING that you use that comes from trees and wood products. IMO, its a little hipicritical to be agaisnt cutting trees but still use products that come from trees.

ETA: The loss of forests, is from, urbanization, shopping centers, shopping malls, subdivisions, etc. Not from cutting trees for use.
http://www.ncforestry.org/docs/Products/index.htm
http://www.idahoforests.org/wood_you.htm

 

[AngieChick]

Quote:
I live in Oregon and would have to say that though this is true for some places it is not for all. In the 80's and 90's there was a huge logging push here in OR that created large swaths of clear cut areas. This was not a sustainable practice as the growth of trees could not keep up with the logging rate. Forests take a very long time to grow back. I don't blame the actual loggers, I blame a lack of long term foresight on the part of company planners looking for high short term profits. The good part is that our forests here will eventually grow back (in many years) and there are ways to log responsibly. Other areas who were losing farmland and forests for malls and subdivisions won't grow back, ever. It's just gone.

Global climate change terminology was changed from global warming because scientists realized that it caused confusion on the part of the general public. While it is overall warming, that can cause actual cooling in some areas. But, Joe Public was sitting back and seeing that the weather was colder on this day or that day and saying "see, there's no such thing as global warming! By golly it's colder!" instead of being able to understand the intricacies of how warmer overall global temps can impact different areas in different ways. There is a huge difference between climate and weather. Climate is long term trends, weather is short term. Decades and centuries versus individual years or months. You have to take the large view. This is why meteorologists are many times trotted out in front of the public as nay-sayers to global warming. However, what many don't understand is that meteorologists deal in short term only (weather), where as climatologists take in the larger longer picture. It's not just climatologists, it's also those who study oceans, the atmosphere, geologists (finding out distant past climates). They muck about in the rocks, the mud, the air and the water hunting out data about the past to figure out how it relates to the future. It's not magic, just hard data and a ton of work.

As to the debate about whether or not it's human caused, I would have to say that in the end that shouldn't even matter. Even if we didn't cause it, we can still act to try to slow it down. It's like trying to find shelter in the rain, even if we didn't cause the rain we still have to deal with it.

Okay, off my soap-box

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

I agree that it is blindest hubris to believe we humans have not damaged the planet. Regardless of whom you think created the planet we have done irreparable harm.

I know many think that this is all fine because the end times are near and therefore we should just use the daylights out of everything put here by god for our use.

Personally I think THAT is the height of arrogance! Just my opinion of course because none of it is provable. Either way. There is evidence that global warming is being mitigated by global dimming - the effect of excessive amounts of cloud cover caused by air traffic especially.

Lets do what we can to take care of the gift given to us by whomever or whatever you believe created it!

 

[warmfuzzies]

Quote:
You're and everyone else that says "it's just a theory" are mixing up two different definitions of the same word.

Please dont assume that just because I disagree with you, means I don't know anything about scientific theory. As I said, and evidently you diddn't notice, I think that we need to change our ways.

Just because I dont believe everything I am told, and I have the mindpower to question things that have yet to be proven, does not mean I know nothing about scientific process.

Theory is theory, truth is not relative, and if it cannot be proven it is not fact. Period. Maybe you should look into logic.

Now having said that, I am not coming back on this thread, because I respect the mods and the rules on this forum, and I am on here to learn about chickens, not to debate.

 

[beak]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

I agree that it is blindest hubris to believe we humans have not damaged the planet. Regardless of whom you think created the planet we have done irreparable harm.

I know many think that this is all fine because the end times are near and therefore we should just use the daylights out of everything put here by god for our use.

Personally I think THAT is the height of arrogance! Just my opinion of course because none of it is provable. Either way. There is evidence that global warming is being mitigated by global dimming - the effect of excessive amounts of cloud cover caused by air traffic especially.

Lets do what we can to take care of the gift given to us by whomever or whatever you believe created it!

Nicely said

I tend to believe in global climate change and I think Gore is a hero for bringing it to the attention of the masses. I know there are a lot of people that don't believe in global climate change. Then again there are a lot of strange beliefs out there. The fact is that the atmosphere is being destroyed.The temperature fluctuations may be natural. There is a lot of opinions on both sides, but anybody with eyes and a nose can smell the pollution. I'm glad we have a green administration that basis it's actions on science. We need to take care of the earth. Hopefully we wont be blown up by zealots and future generations can enjoy the same earth that we do.​

 

[Rosalind]

I'm glad to see that people are starting to be more aware of cleaner technologies that work, save big $$$, and improve our foreign policies by liberating us from the House of Saud and OPEC...But personally I think it is Too Late to do much about global warming. I think we are already kinda screwed, too far gone down that path. That we will not be able to change enough, fast enough, to stop what's coming.

That doesn't mean I think we should not do anything to try to mitigate the damage, but I think we should also work towards curing tropical diseases and expecting vectorborne infectious diseases to spread northwards (yellow fever, malaria, etc.). Right now, the big wealthy North American cities where pharmaceutical research happens don't think a whole lot about malaria or dengue, because it's simply not warm enough for the mosquitoes that carry those diseases to travel this far north. That's already changing, as cases of dengue are now common in the southern US and the northern US is infested with EEE, St Louis encephalitis and West Nile nearly year-round.

And I think we should contemplate hurricane planning for coastal regions in a very serious way: Galveston's infectious diseases labs were flooded last year by hurricanes. It was not a trivial matter to evacuate the island and the University of Texas was not at all certain that the labs would be secure when they got back. That's not exactly safe and healthy for us. We should expect a lot more frequent, and a lot more powerful hurricanes to come through the Gulf Coast and Florida, and start planning for that eventuality--better evacuation systems, serious building codes, levee designs. Hurricanes have been coming further and further north, to areas that never had hurricanes before, and we should think about how we're going to evacuate large Northern cities for hurricanes. Most large northern cities know how to shut themselves down for snow storms, but not how to survive a hurricane.

Where are we going to put people who are flooded out of their homes? This is already an issue with some island countries like the Maldives, Tuvalu, where the entire populations need to be relocated as their homes (which stood for generations) are now sinking underwater. How do we plan to consider their refugee status, in a legal sense? How will we go about providing them new homes?

How are we going to change our agriculture practices to adapt to a less predictable climate? One year, we've got a drought and we can barely store enough water to get through the season, next year it pours three times weekly and everything's drowning. Are we going to use more controllable hydroponics systems? Will monocropping simply become too risky year-to-year, so that we're forced to switch to diverse crops, figuring that if one crop fails something else will be OK?

What are we going to do about water rights? We've already got water rights problems with California, Arizona, etc. looking to drain the Great Lakes so that they can have golf courses in a desert.

Those issues are going to be less about golf courses and more about thirsty people and cropland turning into a Dust Bowl very shortly--within what's left of my lifetime.

That said, my next house is SO going to be a zero-energy house. Thanks for posting this.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

There are alot of people who swear that all of the hoopla about Y2K was nonsense. I was around during those years. And I have worked in the safety field off and on for years. One of the hardest things to convince people of is the efficacy of that which did NOT happen.

Y2K didn't "happen" because all of the yelling got companies to invest the money in the upgrades necessary to prevent it. Without the "doomsayers" nothing would have been done and it could have been very ugly indeed.

To me global warming is not that different. If we tell you how bad it could become maybe you'll do something to prevent it just so you can taunt us later that we were all full of it because nothing happened.

Rosalind is dead on - to many people of the Islands and the Inuits this is not an abstract concept - it is real and their homes and livelihoods are already lost....

 

[Whispering Winds]

God gives us the worms, but he doesn't throw them in our nest. It's our full responsibility to take care of Mother Earth, and everytime we kill a creature of the earth, we are that must closer to extinction ourselves. Something to think about, global change or not. . .WE are the responsible ones, and I think Al Gore did a great thing by bringing our attention to it. . .maybe it is just hype, but then again, what if its NOT? How hard is it to be nice to the earth? How easy is it to fill a water bottle with tap water instead of buying a new one everyday? Its a proven fact that most of this fancy bottled water, including Evian is just tap water . . .I read an article the other day that said stopping buying the bottled water could save the average family who uses it every day about $1400 a year. I thought that was just amazing. If its that easy with bottled water, think about all the other little things we can do to help the earth. I buy detergents and cleaners from a company via internet that is safe for the enviroment, and I love them. . .they clean better than anything out there, and I wish I had know about them 30 years ago . . .every single one of us can do ONE thing to help save the earth, we just have to find what that is!