Im fuzzy on this still. But i read a web page about how the iceage ended. And that the release of the carbon blank was released from the ice after kracatoa erupted x number of years ago. And that released carbon helped melt the ice and snow to end the ice age. I read something else about how we could tip back towards the iceage. By blocking the suns warmth with carbon blank. Will continue later
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Forman...you don't realize it, but you HAVE figured it out...here it is, what you said above, boiled down to three words "Change is constant". Both sides of the debate agree that yes, the climate does change. Some think that it is happening very quickly while others think that it is more gradual.
The biggest part of the debate is whether or not the change is caused by and/or accelerated by the actions or inactions of mankind. That takes the debate to the issue of what, if anything, governments should do to curb the climate change.
That takes in issues such as can or should the government so heavily regulate an item that you use on a daily basis (energy, how you dispose of waste, etc). Big government types want to regulate everything because they think that the individual can't do it themselves or are too stupid collectively to do it. Individualists, on the other hand, would prefer that our freedom not be impinged and that individuals and the free market can solve the problem.
There are a lot of other facets to this debate, to be continued I'm sure.
I would have to say that what we do does effect it. I also think the world is going to try and right itself. By volcanos earthquakes. Which will produce tusnami"s as well as put gases and carbon particles in the air. Helping to cool the planet back down. Possibly bringing on another iceage.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Well put.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Thanks, I wish it was original to me (the quote) but it is one of my favorite scenes from that series!
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
You put it in the right place though.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Thanks again! I submitted it too, now waiting for it to get featured! Maybe comment on it, help things along? https://imgflip.com/i/xwsaw
Whether or not global warming is real or a hoax doesn't matter,it's a no brainer to cut pollution.Where there is money there is greed,greed has no concern other than money.To support the release of toxic wastes into our environment for money or denounce regulation is foolish.
Remember when medical bio-hazard syringes,chemicals,mustard gas bombs and radioactive wasted were just buried in the ground and dumped into lakes and rivers and the black smoke from smokestacks would block the sunlight?
That's why regulation is needed,toxic is toxic and to try to rationalize or convince mankind that toxic pollution in any form isn't harmful to our environment is
That denialist at Forbes is not very good at reading data. The slope of dataline of the area of the ice is continually down from 1979. Plus the fact that, again, area AND volume are what matter-- the ice thickness and volume has been shrinking continually when one looks at the dataline.
Again, just because one year is up from the last is meaningless, we look at the historical data over time to see what is happening. And NASA, those folks the author claims to be agreeing with.. say the area and volume are shrinking over time.
Here's a good site to read science, from basic to in-depth, about why denialist arguments are just not true. Go with science, not politics.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The ice caps are not melting they are growing. In Philly we are getting the same type of weather we got a few years ago. Its called a weather cycle people. All world leaders will tell you it is a hoax! It is a money maker nothing more nothing less. As for one comment I saw I agree toxic is toxic and pollution is a problem not to the weather but to our health. So I agree cutting back would be great. However carbon is big cause and carbon comes from volcanoes as well as vehicles, factories, and Obamas favorite means of transportation airplanes!
Actually, no they haven't in any way that matters. Articles proclaiming that are are just looking art year-to-year change, which is not accurate-- we have to look at the historical average and graph of ice area AND volume over years, and both of those data lines have continual negative slope for the Arctic.
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/3
The Antarctic has seen some larger area, however this area "increase" is not evidence of Earth not warming overall:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-basic.htm
Well, actually, global warming isn't going to "warm the earth". The reason we are having worse winters that last longer is because the ice caps are melting. If the ice caps fully melt, it will freeze the pacific ocean and drive the earth into another Ice Age.
Re-caption this meme
The biggest part of the debate is whether or not the change is caused by and/or accelerated by the actions or inactions of mankind. That takes the debate to the issue of what, if anything, governments should do to curb the climate change.
That takes in issues such as can or should the government so heavily regulate an item that you use on a daily basis (energy, how you dispose of waste, etc). Big government types want to regulate everything because they think that the individual can't do it themselves or are too stupid collectively to do it. Individualists, on the other hand, would prefer that our freedom not be impinged and that individuals and the free market can solve the problem.
There are a lot of other facets to this debate, to be continued I'm sure.
Remember when medical bio-hazard syringes,chemicals,mustard gas bombs and radioactive wasted were just buried in the ground and dumped into lakes and rivers and the black smoke from smokestacks would block the sunlight?
That's why regulation is needed,toxic is toxic and to try to rationalize or convince mankind that toxic pollution in any form isn't harmful to our environment is
Again, just because one year is up from the last is meaningless, we look at the historical data over time to see what is happening. And NASA, those folks the author claims to be agreeing with.. say the area and volume are shrinking over time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/3
The Antarctic has seen some larger area, however this area "increase" is not evidence of Earth not warming overall:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-basic.htm