Of course they are of interest, but has there been a sudden increase in volcanic activity in modern times? This would show up in seismic reports.
It's not the uneven distribution of heat that is the problem, it is that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing.
Yeah, perhaps it's greenhouse gases. But the undersea volcanic eruptions aren't man-made, are they? Or is the Copenhagen conference also planning to limit the volcanic activity under the oceans of the world? ...and forest fires? Baron Max
And the increase in CO2 just happens to coincide with mankind's massive increase in emissions in the past decades? So you guys go from: 1. The world isn't warming. 2. OK, the world is warming, but it isn't due to CO[sup]2[/sup]. 3. OK, the world is warming due to CO[sup]2[/sup], but it isn't our CO[sup]2[/sup]. Is that about right?
Here in Canada, I'm wondering why our freezers and refrigerators don't have some sort of heat-conducting pipe connected to the outdoors. You could have a lever or knob you twist so you could connect and disconnect this pipe at will (i.e. when winter rolls around), that way you don't have it draining or supplying heat from outside when you don't want it to. It just doesn't seem to make sense that we spend so much money to heat our homes, and then spend so much more on top of that to keep our foods cold in these same homes.
I'm not surprised by the reaction of some to the idea of human-caused "damage" to the environment, which includes the air we breathe. I mean, we usually just ignore the mess, look at America as a shining example of repeated mis-management of resources, to make "progress". China is "rushing" to catch up with this progress, and has multiple highly polluted and dangerous cities (health-wise) to offer its people as a "sign" of this. Ok, China is aware, most countries are, that it needs to lift its game and get more efficient and pollute less. The argument then inevitable comes down to: "how much can we pollute the world by, and still have a world?" The big elephant in the room is that, progress is defined in "human" terms, and we may have to accept that those terms are misconceived. Which means we are making progress toward something, which may not be the "development" or "progress" we think it is. Most humans like any other animal, will just keep on living and using resources, I cannot see that in general, we are all going to use "less", it doesn't make sense. We might be able to use less per person, but we won't be able to have less people. The capitalist dilemma is that resources are not infinite, and the planet has a limit. I think I can safely assume that it will make the final decision.
I had an overclocked Duron(amd elcheapo CPU back in the day) I put in plastic and set in the snow (Bottom floor apt). It was 1gighz running at 1.8! You are right we should have a dissipater or something rigged to the outside.
What are the errors in measurement and why do they always (after 1940, anyway) require that measurements be adjusted up? I'd think one error they'd want to account for would be the encroachment of civilization to formerly remote weather stations creating "heat islands". This, of course, would require that they make adjustments downward. What factors require an adjustment upward and seem to require more and more adjustment as time goes by?
It really doesn't matter what is causing global warming. It matters what we do to mitigate it. This is like arguing what caused a bullet to be fired. It matters little once the bullet has left the barrel. The question is what do we do in the aftermath.
How can you know what and how to mitigate it when you don't know what the fuck is causing it? Or are you suggesting that we should just blanketly believe some of those scientists who seem intent on scaring us all? That the sky is falling might indeed be true, but saying it over and over doesn't make it any more believable. Not the same thing at all, Joe. We know for sure what causes the bullet to leave the gun and we also know exactly what to do to prevent it. Not so the climate bullshit thingie. We could spend billions, trillions, perhaps, and not even make a dent in the climate conditions. We could spend billions, then a few years from now find out that the climate change was actually a natural thing (with man's involvement only a mere pittance). It's interesting that they can't even give accurate weather forecasts for five or ten days, yet they keep telling us what the weather is going to be fifty years from now?! ;=) Baron Max
Perhaps the numbers go up because that reflects the reality of the situation. For instance, satellite numbers were too cool because they didn't adjust for a slight drag from the atmosphere, causing a spiraling orbit, the distance from Earth being critical to the calculation. It makes sense that urbanization would result in higher temperatures, and that data is often thrown out. The fact that the graph still shows a rising trend seems to support GW.
Much of it has been declassified since the end of the cold war: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/predicted/explore.HTML
Shading requires an upward adjustment. Increasing shading, for whatever reason, would require an increasing upward adjustment. A rising horizon would also (as I understand it) require an increasing upward adjustment.
