Fate of Earth

[StarLab]

All in all, let's say humans did not exist right now...would we be up for an automatic ice age in the next ten thousand years or so? I mean, I don't think anyways that humans are capable of causing a global warming. In my book, on Earth, there never has been, never will be. I mean certainly, we've been polluting, causing the death, destruction and extinction of thousands of carbon-based life forms. But should we really treat it as an oncoming crisis? We ain't capable of producing a global warming. Way too advanced for us, babe. Environmentalists are out over their heads, and so is Bush (nothing political here meant or implies, folks.)
What's the story here, behind this all?

[Algenon the mouse]

Global Warming is a real threat. We are currently in the middle of a heating trend in the earth's cycle. With the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet could actually get warmer during this cycle than it has ever been before. The hottest days on record have been within the last six years. Humans have polluted the earth with green house gasses. It has been predicted that in addtion to the natural warming of the earth, we could be in for a very hot time indeed since the average temp could go up as much as 5 degrees. (incidently since the ice melting to the north, the ocean currents could be disrupted causing colder winters in some parts of the world).

Many wetlands, coral reefs, etc. are already in danger.

Without the greenhouse gasses, we would just be experiencing another normal warming trend before an ice age cycle. It looks like this might be a VERY warm trend. And, sorry to say, humans are responsible for the green house gasses, we are partly responsible.

Thirsty anyone?

[StarLab]

Mm-hmm. And tell me, what would be the future history of the earth if the dime-thick O3 layer really were to disappear completely.

[Tinaa]

Without the greenhouse gases we'd be frozen ball of rock. Water vapor is, by far, the most abundent greenhouse gas. CO2 is a must for plants, which in turn converts it to oxygen. I think humans are only contributing to the natural hot/cold cycles Earth has.

[Kneeknocker]

There is evidence that there has been global warming over thousands of years, but we (human beings) are adding to this in a big way, i saw a tv interview about 5 years ago and this boffin was saying that if we dont stop cfc's and burning coal in the next 10 years it will be too late to stop the damage being done to the earth....
Well i think it is too late now, what with the icebergh's breaking up at an incredible rate than normal.... The damage is done, it is up to our children and there children to sort this mess out.... if it isnt to late

[StarLab]

On the other hand, something spiritual is going on here...as the polar Antarctic ice cap melts, the frozen soil will appear to us for the first time in tens of hundreds of millenia. For me, this is a long anticipated day, which, with current rising of global warming, will come much sooner, possibly, hopefully, within my lifetime. Who knows what we will discover beneath that barren layer of ice?

[Tom2Mars]

Kneeknocker, re-

The damage is done, it is up to our children and there children to sort this mess out.... if it isnt to late

If we can't fix it, the "children" won't be able to. Are they going to get any smarter than us? Or, just so desparate for a solution that they actually DO something about it.

I think we arrived at this point by just stumbling along without a plan. Having a solution and a plan and doing something proactive can accomplish positive benefits faster than it took to create the problem.

And StarLab, I've seen your train of thought expressed by lots of other people. It usually goes:

1) I don't believe "climate change/greenhouse effect" is happening
2) Well, maybe some of the evidence is compelling
3) Well, maybe climate change is happening, but maybe it won't be a bad thing.

The biggest phrase I've heard in the vein of #3 is, "maybe the extra CO2 will stimulate plant growth.

Well, if that was true, the plants would grow, and the CO2 would be taken up...right? So, how come the CO2 levels aren't dropping?

The absolutely consistent thing about the attitude of the nay-sayers, is that they don't want to do anything about it. Watching the news, debating it endlessly, conjecturing whether it is a good thing or a bad thing...takes no effort, requires no action and, accomplishes nothing.

Just as a mental exercise, accept the premise as true, that we humans can affect things on a planetary scale, and ask yourself if you can do something to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. And try something, anything.

Because let's face it, if you don't think that 6 billion plus people can affect the environment of a whole planet, then you might as well forget about a handful of people Terraforming Mars, or anywhere else.

We are intelligent powerful creatures, or, we are impotent. Pick one.

[StarLab]

Actually, my first vein went something like this: was planet earth really due for a global warming around this time anyways and humans are just making it a bit more severe, or was this current global warming never really supposed to happen now?

[Algenon the mouse]

Originally posted by StarLab@Aug 28 2004, 04:55 PM
Mm-hmm. And tell me, what would be the future history of the earth if the dime-thick O3 layer really were to disappear completely.

I think we both know what would happen. But too much of anything, including greenhouse gases is not necessarily a good thing.

Venus seems to have a lot of greenhouse gasses. It makes the planet bright and quite beautiful in the sky, but it does not necessarily make it livable.

I think a lot of people need to take a reality check: the warming of the earth, even by a degree can wipe out many species on the earth. This happens with the natural cycle of the earth. Because of the added human effect, it is suppose to raise more than the warming cycle usually does. (most scientists say probably 4 degrees versus the usually 1 degree). It is a safe bet that more than a few species will die. They have no place to run. The current global warming is NOT normal. We are not just making it a bit more severe, we are making it a lot more severe We are talking about real starvation of both people and other life forms.

Although there might be a lot of things to find underneath the polar ice and glaciers, I am not sure worth what we would lose in exchange. Whole islands will be under water causing massive devestation.

If something is not done now (and with so many people thinking that someone else will take care of it, or it is not really a "problem" it looks pretty bad), the damange to our earth will be irreversable.

[ASEI]

Nature is supposed to put out 220 something billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year. We put out something like 5 billion tons a year. If we disappeared off the face of the planet, the Earth's CO2 balance would barely be affected at all. Either it absorbs the CO2, or it builds up in the atmosphere. +/- 5 billion tons doesn't make a whit of difference - there is nothing special about human CO2.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=258277
I got these numbers from this source. I'll need to check later to make sure they are reasonable numbers. For some reason, billions of tons seems a little too large compared to the Earth's atmospheric mass.

[Algenon the mouse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

http://www.42explore.com/globewrm.htm

Here is a couple of links for you. The first one was from the BBC about the manmade causes of global warming. The second link actually looks at both sides and has links to other sites both pro and con. The internet is a wonderful thing; you can almost always find a website to support any view you take.

I like to look at past evidence and both points of view before making up my mind and, sorry, I still say that humans have contributed to global warming on a large scale.

btw...we contribute is many ways, like coal, gas, and oil burning, deforestation, cattle(good ole Mc Donalds), gaslines, and even rice paddies, fertilizers and other chemicals which are released in our atmosphere. The earth is use to absorbing some Co2...but we have added a lot to the equation.

[Alaskan]

Global warming due to human influence is so minimal as to be insignificant. However the earth is warming very slowly due to natural causes. It is warming from sun's activity and from recovered balance from the mini-ice-age some centuries ago. I look forward to warmer evenings here in Alaska with great expectation, though I'm not holding my breath.

The REAL QUESTION has to do with change. Does climate change mean that earth is in jeapardy? If someone considers this true then the earth has been doomed from the beginning, for the ONLY law in the universe that no one questions is change. Those who wish to freeze the earth in some unnatural existence have no comprehension of the nature of our universe.

Claims of the early death of our world is as old as mankind. Nothing is new in these claims, only the cause changes from year to year and century to century. The hubris of some humans that claim we can alter our complex atmospheric processes on earth so easily worry me. Especially when they keep coming back to their answer, radical change of our political and economic system.

[John L]

I'm with ASEI and Alaskan that we aren't the cause. We have actual written records for about 150 years on enviromental and weather data. Of that only the last few decades, using computerization, have we gathered truly comprehensive data. We only recently discovered things like el nino and la nina, and the mechanisms that control them (we think), and we're supposed to believe that we already know all there is to know about the climate?

My opinion is that this is a part of a natural, cyclic process that goes from hot to cold and back of tens of thousands of years. The last ice age wasn't the first. For the last few million years we've had minor ice ages every 40,000 to 100,000 years. We are 10,000 years past the last ice age. It is very possible that the world is getting warmer only because its a part of the natural cycle, and we still have about 10,000 more years of warming until the cycle turns back to cooling.

Incidentally, based on the current climate models, Texas is supposed to become wetter with a milder, but more tropical climate. Sounds good to me!

[ASEI]

I've looked at Algenon's sources. I would prefer ones that put reasonable numbers out there. Percentages of growth do not demonstrate that we have had an effect. Because certain groups or agencies claim certain things sometimes certainly doesn't mean they are facts.

The comparison between natural and human carbon dioxide emmissions provided me with a degree of scale that I could work with to look at exactly how much influence we have.

5 billion tons/220 billion tons = 0.0227 human/nature emission ratio. We have a marginal effect,
Another source somewhere said that it was 20 billion tons for mankind.
20/220 = 0.0909, not entirely insignificant, but not earth shattering either

My argument is that if the earth could absorb 220 billion tons of CO2 for millions of years, it can probably change to absorb 225 or 240 billion tons/year. All that is required is a bit of suboceanic plant growth. It wasn't as if the earth has had a fixed capacity to handle a fixed output : both have changed over time. The capacity to deal with carbon dioxide, plant matter, grew to accomadate the carbon dioxide state in the atmosphere.

[Tom2Mars]

1) It's not just CO2

2) Micro-organisms like the one responsible for the Bubonic Plague like it warmer. Saw that on a PBS documentary called "Catastrophe!" And there's molds, fungus, mosquitoes...all kinds of life forms to take advantage of the additional warmth.

3) I still think it's possible to make more money without producing the greenhouse gases.

It's really kind of strange that on the one hand, if tens of thousands of scientists believe we are causing climate change and suggest that we change our ways, lots of folks are resistant to lift a finger and do anything. Those same people then say they don't mind if the climate changes for the entire planet, even if millions to billions are affected by extremes in the weather, from flooding to severe heat in the summer.

Is more pleasant weather for some in Alaska worth the cost of tens of thousands of lives in Europe and India during the recent heat waves?

As the changes in the climate become more severe, more people are becoming concerned. As they look for alternatives, new opprotunities for business will flourish.

I'll say it again, more money without producing the greenhouse gases.

[ASEI]

The problem is that all these scientists are so tied up with a socialist political agenda (abstain from industrial production/consumption peasant&#33 that it is extremely difficult to tell when they are telling the truth, or lying through their teeth. A lot of other scientists say that they aren't sure we are the cause.

You saw the numbers on actual CO2 emmissions. Numbers are very difficult to pin down in these debates, no one likes to talk about relative quantity or establish perspective in their doom prophecy. It is more a matter of weaving morose visions of the future and telling people if you don't do x, this will happen.

0.09 If there is a problem, we are a microscopic component of it.

2) Micro-organisms like the one responsible for the Bubonic Plague like it warmer. Saw that on a PBS documentary called "Catastrophe!" And there's molds, fungus, mosquitoes...all kinds of life forms to take advantage of the additional warmth.

And plagues of locusts and fire and brimstone.

I still think it's possible to make more money without producing the greenhouse gases

Not with industrial processes it isn't. Our productivity is enabled by artificial work, which is enabled by gigawatts of portable energy. The available energy/person, and therefore the available per capita productivity would be decimated if we lost our energy capability. Our economy would collapse. We would literally be living in the middle ages again.

People can live with climate change - we have throughout our entire history. We cannot maintain our modern civilization without portable energy. In a sense, climate change will cost us less than refraining from fossil fuels - a rational decision.

[Tom2Mars]

It works both ways ASEI. Scientists working for the petrochemical companies should be suspect as to their slant on how data is interpreted.

Plus, I had kinda hoped that not all of the 50,000 scientists who believe in climate change are socialist politicians and anti-industrialists. I thought they liked Science.

You know, you don't have to believe climate change is happening and, you don't have to do anything about it. As far as I'm concerned, if educated and intelligent people (like yourself) with the best potential for creative problem solving don't want to participate in solutions, then fine.

I couldn't be happier.

You won't be in the way or provide any competition. That leaves fewer of us to be creative and make a profit off of anyone who is concerned.

So, thanks! I have worked hard for many years on energy-efficient solutions. I'm going to enjoy keeping the booty to myself.

[Algenon the mouse]

For those of you who asked, here is a better link. It answers a lot of the questions everyone raised:


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/g....cfm?pageID=498

I agree with Tom2Mars. Scientist have been warning us about the problems for a long time. I, for one, will want to problem solve a good solution so my children will have a future. It will already be difficult with the natural cycle of the earth getting warmer without contributing to the problem.


But I do not really think we will agree, which is fine because most theories take time to evolve and be accepted. Even Einstein had a problem with the theory of the expanding universe and even made a variable so the equations would fit the Steady State theory instead of the "Big Bang". Maybe with time I will see it your way or you will see it mine, but I still think we need to do everything we can to stop the destruction of the earth that is obviously happening.

[GOURDHEAD]

It is critical that we have a viable concept of how to develop alternative energy sources before we exhaust the fossil fuels which are needed to develop the alternatives. The ecosphere of the earth is a complex system, its analysis is extremely difficult, and our ability to anticipate sudden chaotic excursions from the norm is very near zero. I think we should anticipate both catastrophic warming and cooling. There is convincing evidence that global icing occurs every 10 to 15 thousand years which means we are due for one; however, we have tweaked he system by the addition of CO2 and can't be sure which way to lean or how fast either catastrophic extreme will develop. I believe most scientists are telling us what their honest analysis of the data is suggesting to them. Predicting the weather on a daily basis is difficult enough; predicting climate trends is way over our heads, but still we must try and we should hope to be right now and then.

Take a look here for how heavily weighted our energy production is in favor of fossil fuels. It is surprising how small the contribution from hydrothermal and wind is. This table reveals at a glance that developing the alternatives before we run out of fossil fuels is strongly essential. Energy Production Ratio (EPR) of each new source must remain above unity (e.g., the energy production from one unit of coal must always be larger than the energy required to make it available to the furnace that uses it) and the larger the better. Not all coal reserves meet this requirement; I'm not sure about petroleum reserves. It is not obvious that advocates of each of the alternatives has really grasped how difficult the transition to alternatives is going to be; emotional hyperbolism will not help. We are all in this single lifeboat; if it must be rocked, do it gently.

[StarLab]

emotional hyperbolism will not help. We are all in this single lifeboat; if it must be rocked, do it gently.

I gotta put that in my list of Great Quotes. That'll rival Einstein, that will... B) :P
No, really, I like it! I think you have a good point, GH, in the rest of what you said too. You really ARE the Schwartzinegger of the Forums!

[GOURDHEAD]

The biggest phrase I've heard in the vein of #3 is, "maybe the extra CO2 will stimulate plant growth. Well, if that was true, the plants would grow, and the CO2 would be taken up...right? So, how come the CO2 levels aren't dropping?

Perhaps the biota is beginning to react to limit the rate of increase of CO2 if not reduce it.

Here and
here are some examples of inputs to the very complex system affecting climate.

The earth has a number of self limiting feedback loops to protect us from ourselves. We need deeper understanding o this complex system and a helpful attitude.

[ASEI]

The biggest phrase I've heard in the vein of #3 is, "maybe the extra CO2 will stimulate plant growth.* Well, if that was true, the plants would grow, and the CO2 would be taken up...right? So, how come the CO2 levels aren't dropping?

There is a time delay to the reaction.

dplantlife/dt = constant*CO2density + a whole lot of other factors
dCO2/dt = constant*plantlife + humanCO2 emmission + naturalCO2 emmission

I still say that due to the miniscule amount of human CO2 production to natural CO2 production, whether or not the luddites win and we stop (and civilization conseuently collapses), or the industrialists win and we keep producing CO2 will not matter in terms of global warming.

[Tom2Mars]

And ASEI, re-

whether or not the luddites win and we stop (and civilization conseuently collapses)

I still say it is simpler to reduce CO2 production by using appropriate, cost-effective technology. During Charlie and Francis (hurricanes which wrecked havoc here in Florida and the Carribean recently) the grid (powered by by lots of coal, oil, natural gas and propane fired, CO2 producing, electricity-generating power plants) failed spectacularly.

Millions were without the benefits and the fruits of this current standard of technology.

My off-the-grid, solar powered structures performed wonderfully. I was not without electric power, or air-conditioning and refrigeration, or water, or the ability to flush the toilet.

I continued to use the best technology has to offer...uninterrupted, cost-effectively, and, without producing CO2 in the process. And, now I have more clients.

[TheThorn]

Originally posted by ASEI@Sep 1 2004, 01:26 AM
You saw the numbers on actual CO2 emmissions. Numbers are very difficult to pin down in these debates, no one likes to talk about relative quantity or establish perspective in their doom prophecy.

There is a balance in nature. If natural sources produce and consume 220 billion tons of carbon per year, and we add 5 billion, then there's 5 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere at the end of the year. You seem to be saying that this doesn't matter, or that you hope that nature will adjust itself to absorb that extra 5 billion tons (or whatever value it really is). But the evidence is that this is not happening.

You want numbers? Lots of numbers???

CO2 Data has been recorded monthly at Mauna Loa since 1958. Check it out.

In 1959, the atmosphere contained 316 ppm CO2. It has gone up each and every year since. In the monthly data, you can see seasonal variations, as the plant life in the northern hemisphere absorbs CO2 in the summer, and gives it up in the winter, but the average moves up EVERY YEAR. In 2003 it had reached 376 ppm. That's a 19% increase in 44 years.

Are we the cause? We certainly could be, and there's no other suspect nearby.

Is it necessarily connected to the recent changes in climate? It certainly could be. If it isn't, then the change in climate is quite a co-incidence, no?

[GOURDHEAD]

In 1959, the atmosphere contained 316 ppm CO2......In 2003 it had reached 376 ppm.

That indicates a significant percentage increase in CO2 near a volcano. Has anyone accurately measured the heat retention properties of either value? Do we know how? It would be nice to have a curve relating ppm of the earth average CO2 to the heat retention properties of the atmosphere. This is probably more subtle than plotting average temperature of the atmosphere and/or oceans against the ppm of CO2.

Wouldn't you expect CO2 readings taken near a volcano to introduce a less accurate indication of the earth average increase in CO2 than would ten thousand or so readings from all around the earth? My suspicion is that even 1000 ppm CO2 would be below the threshold at which significant heat retention occurs. At 1000 ppm the biota will swing into action to counterbalance the effect.

[TheThorn]

I guess if you're looking for a reason to ignore the best available data, you'll be able to find it. That particular volcano is located in the middle of an ocean, where the winds freely bring fresh air from around the world.

Note that you cannot identify periods of local volcanic activity from periods of volcanic quiescence in the data at all, even though the data clearly shows a seasonal fluctuation caused by northern hemisphere vegetation that is thousands of miles away. Clearly the volcano itself has zero effect on the readings. Local effects are not present in the data, but global effects are.

You say it is difficult to find "numbers" in this argument, yet you scoff at the best data available for reasons that are clearly incorrect, based on the data itself. Perhaps you should take a closer look at whether you are really interested in what the data says. One of the hardest things to avoid in science is the tendency to look to the data for confrimation rather than enlightenment. Elements on both sides of this argument are guilty of that.

Take care.

[ASEI]

Okay. Apparently that does track with earth average data. Sorry.

Even so, the manmade portion of that increase is ridiculously small.
Massive fluctuations in carbon dioxide content have taken place throughout geological history due to geothermal activity. Fluctuations that dwarf any we could ever produce merely by burning oil.

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/cli...nge2/07_1.shtml

If these numbers are accurate, then mankind has produced a piddling effect compared to natural fluctuations over history.

Even assuming we could stop this warming by ceasing consumption of fossil fuels, is it really worth returning to the middle ages, or wrecking the economy in pursuit of far less efficient and hard to produce synthetic fuels?
Even assuming the worst possible fire and brimstone prophecy of the global warming lobby, sea levels rising, rainfall patterns shifting, ect, are far easier to deal with with a strong economy than providing for the world will be with a medieval economy. Sea-walls to hold back the 11 mm/year oceanic rise are fairly easy to build. We can turn deserts into farmland, irrigate and terraform entire continents, move hillsides, ect with steam and internal combustion power. We are more at the mercy of nature (even assuming the warming would stop if we stopped industry) under medieval economies where we have no such artificial labor available, and far less productive agriculturally.


I still maintain that it is ridiculous to blame those hurricanes on global warming, since hardly any warming has taken place yet. Effects such as these couldn't be generated by one degree of difference in atmospheric temperature since the pre-industrial era. Furthermore, if it were the case, then we should have seen a steady increase in the frequency of such storms over the industrialized era. Instead, we have a few random years where the tropics get hammered particularly hard.

One more thing, wouldn't it make sense for temperature gradients to decrease, and therefore hurricane frequency to decrease under global warming? Wouldn't it make sense for the atmospheric concentration of water to increase, rather than decrease under a warmer atmosphere? (More rainfall, not continent spanning deserts?)

[Tom2Mars]

Effects such as these couldn't be generated by one degree of difference in atmospheric temperature since the pre-industrial era

Euro's and Australians, take note! When an Americaner wants to minimize the Global Average Temperature Change since the Industrial Revolution, He suddenly switches to using the Metric System! You Know, a 1° C change certainly looks like a smaller number than a 2° F change.

ASEI, re-

Even assuming we could stop this warming by ceasing consumption of fossil fuels, is it really worth returning to the middle ages, or wrecking the economy in pursuit of far less efficient and hard to produce synthetic fuels?

Point #1) Hurricanes Charlie and Francis absolutely wrecked the utility grid here in Florida. A couple of times there, and for weeks, millions were without power and water and sewer.

Point #2) I am in my cozy, energy-efficient, low-cost(!!!&#33, state-of-the-art house, with my solar panels and batteries(new technology&#33, running every labor-saving, comfort-enhancing appliance you can think of.

While the Fossil-Fuel Driven grid you love to defend...Was Down!

The Grid didn't work. It didn't exist any more!

From my point of view, the ones living in the Dark Ages were the ones who depended on the Fossil Fuel-based sysem of power generation, which didn't work!! And, guess what, I know you like Nuclear Power, and even IT wasn't flowing past the broken power lines either!

However, Advanced Civilization continued to exist in my little corner of the woods!

And, you know what? The oil is running out, in case you haven't noticed, so the sooner folks start embracing alternatives, the better off they will be!

We once had horses, then we got trains and cars.

We once had Vacuum Tubes, then we got transistors and semiconductors.

We once had computers the size of buildings, and air-conditioners the size of even bigger buildings just to cool their vacuum tubes down, now we have hand-held calculators that are more powerful.

We once had an antiquated, oil-fired utility grid...now we have efficient, grid-independent, solar-powered, fuel-cell enhanced homes, offices and cars.

Whoops, I forgot, you are still living in the past...Well, just wait a few years, things will all get better, you'll see.

[TheThorn]

Originally posted by ASEI@Sep 22 2004, 12:47 AM

Massive fluctuations in carbon dioxide content have taken place throughout geological history due to geothermal activity. Fluctuations that dwarf any we could ever produce merely by burning oil.

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/cli...nge2/07_1.shtml

If these numbers are accurate, then mankind has produced a piddling effect compared to natural fluctuations over history.

Very interestng link. Have you read it all?

One interesting graph on the next page in that article shows historic atmospheric CO2 content for the last 500,000 years, based on samples from the Vostok ice core. Large variations are the norm, as you said (although stating that the cause is geothermal activity is a bit of a stretch, we sure know it wasn&#39;t US <grin>). High CO2 invariably tracks high temperatures through that period remarkably closely.

But the range on that graph is very interesting. During cold periods, the atmosphere hit lows of 200 ppm CO2. During interglacials (like the present), it hit highs of 300 ppm.

According to your link, in about 1800, before the industrial revolution, it was 275 to 280. In 1959 it was 315 ppm. Today it is 367 ppm. It hasn&#39;t been that high in over a half million years. Something has changed in the last century or so. Is it geothermal activity? Where?

Just let me quote one paragraph, from the link you supplied:

"While this increase in carbon dioxide has occurred, temperatures in the northern hemisphere have risen by between 1°F and 2°F (almost 1°C) since A.D. 1850, as recorded by measurements. The record only goes back 150 years because direct measurements before 1850 are hard to find. The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1983, seven of them since 1990. Global temperature in 1998 was the hottest in the historical record. This amount of overall increase in temperature is approximately equal to the amount of increase that is predicted by raising the abundance of carbon dioxide by one third of pre-industrial values – exactly what has happened in the last 150 years. "

There&#39;s an awful lot we don&#39;t know about how the climate reacts to the kind of changes we&#39;re causing. Perhaps it is so robust that we can change CO2 content by 30% or more and have no measurable effect. Perhaps we&#39;re lucking out, and the con-trails all those jets are leaving in the stratosphere are reflecting enough sunlight back into space to compensate for the effect of the CO2. Perhaps everything is just hunky dory.

But, we are burning a lot of fossil fuels (the company I work for burns a million tons of coal a year, and that&#39;s not to mention the Natural gas we use, and we&#39;re just little guys). One would expect that to cause CO2 levels to rise, and co-incidentally, they&#39;re rising. One would expect that to cause temperatures to rise, and co-incidentally, they&#39;re rising.

One can cover one&#39;s eyes, plug one&#39;s ears, and go merrily on one&#39;s way, or one can make a real effort to understand what&#39;s going on.

[Tom2Mars]

Great Post&#33; Good insight, TheThorn&#33;

re-

One can cover one&#39;s eyes, plug one&#39;s ears, and go merrily on one&#39;s way, or one can make a real effort to understand what&#39;s going on.

And if I might add something to your suggestion, One could also do something pro-active, like reducing the burning which is contributing to the CO2 increases.

According to one company I buy Solar energy equipment from, there are around 500,000 homes in the U.S. right now that are off the grid, which utilize efficiency, conservation and Solar Panels in various combinations to reduce/eliminate their dependency to the grid, and remove themselves from being "part of the problem".

While some portion of the population is very old, and in the last house they will own, and another portion of the population is very young, and aren&#39;t making economic decisions yet (like buying a house), then there are over 100 million people making housing/energy choices. At one or 2 adults per home, there might be nearly 1 million people in those 1/2 million "off-the-grid" houses that have made their decision.

That means nearly 1% of the active, thinking, buying public has done something pro-active. One Percent is a good start&#33;

And, if we make alternatives more available and cost-effective, there is a whole &#39;nother group of Humans arriving withing the next 40 years from the soul factory, about 6+ Billion of them. They will only choose from what we put in place now.

And finally, I don&#39;t believe any of the governments or corporations did any studies before they started the Industrial Revolution, or, made roads and internal combustion cars that used them, and made the coal, oil and gas fired power plants.

While I&#39;m all for good studies to find out what the details of our activities are on this planet, I shouldn&#39;t hurt things too much that I remove myself from the grid while we collect the data.