cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Interesting weather fact.

Orion
Explorer
Explorer
We're visiting family in Ontario, and like the rest of the continental NE, the weather is unseasonably warm. This morning at 730am, the temp was 15C. I just happened to click on Mazatlan's figure, and it was 13C!
Yes that was at the airport, which is often a little cooler, but even Playa Escondido was 15C.
For those of you that are metrically challenged, those figures are 55F and 58F.:)
Sometimes I sit and think deep thoughts. other times, I just sit!
40 REPLIES 40

silversand
Explorer
Explorer
Dave B110 wrote:
I always remember the stories of the Vikings establishing themselves in Greenland, a thousand years ago. It must have been warmer then.


...oh ya. About 5+C warmer on average annually from ~~ 2000BP to ~1000BP (Atmospheric Environment Service; Environment Canada)

The sea surface temperature around western Newfoundland from ~9.5 to ~8.6 thousand years ago was quite a bit colder than today. Then, sea surface temperatures around Newfoundland were warmer than today's from ~4000 to ~1000 years before present (all measured using dinocist proxies: Palynology; 27 2003; pp135-154 ).

The Vikings would have likely had an easy sail to and living on Newfoundland; but it would have probably been very wet (much higher ave. annual precipitation than today).
Silver
2004 Chevy Silverado 2500HD 4x4 6.0L Ext/LB Tow Package 4L80E Michelin AT2s| Outfitter Caribou

briansue
Explorer
Explorer
As noted in Silver’s post above scientists have been studying all of this for a long time. They have all kinds of scientific equipment all over the world gathering data. Even NASA has satellites looking at the planet trying to detect changes. The idea that this warming or whatever you want to call it has happened before is just so incorrect it is hard to believe anyone subscribes to that theory. What is happening today is a direct result of the industrial revolution or whatever you want to call it. Here is but one example of the effects of soot from coal fired plants that is happening to ice all over the world. Way back when they know this did happen before as a result of things like dust and soot from volcanoes. So yes it happened before. But nothing even remotely like what is happening today. Coal soot and other fossil fuel pollutants are affecting everything on the planet and many different negative ways. With all the science that has been gathered over the past century it is hard to believe there are still people out there who do not know much about this. So here is a tiny bit more of it to try to help you understand.

This one is from NASA
Sensing Glacial Surfaces
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PaintedGlaciers/page3.php

One feature that Casey knew satellites could observe is fairly straightforward: the color and brightness of debris layers on glaciers. The color of the surface has important consequences. Just as dark-colored clothes will make you warmer on a sunny day because they absorb sunlight, dark-toned particulates—such as soot from industrial pollution and wildfires, or basaltic tephra from volcanoes—heat glacial surfaces. Dark debris causes snow and ice to melt faster because it absorbs sunlight more readily than lighter-colored materials like salt and silica-rich dust.
The reflectivity of a substance is known as its albedo. Bright surfaces have high albedos (close to 1), while dark surfaces have low albedos (close to 0). Pure snow generally has a visible albedo of .95, meaning it reflects more than 95 percent of the visible light that hits it. Desert sand reflects about 40 percent (albedo of 0.4), and pure soot reflects less than ten percent of incoming light (albedo 0.1)


Small amounts of soot can have a big impact on albedo. As far back as 1980, scientist Warren Wiscombe (then at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, today at NASA) showed that just a few parts per billion of soot could reduce the albedo of snow by up to 15 percent. Leading climatologists, including former NASA scientist James Hansen, have argued that sooty smoke and industrial pollution from South Asia is one of the main factors to cause Tibetan glaciers to recede so rapidly during the past decade.

The composition of the debris on glacial surfaces also matters. Salts, for instance, dissolve into melt water on a glacier. Mixtures of soot, dust, pollen, and pulverized rock also make pockmarked, circular cavities in ice called cryoconites. These holes—which can grow to be meters deep—often fill with melt water that supports thriving colonies of cyanobacteria, fungi, and other microbes. The spread of these communities can even affect albedo as they spread over ice surfaces.

Layers of soot from coal burning melted Alpine glaciers even in cooler climate of the 19th Century

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/layers-of-soot-from-coal-burning-melted-alpine-glaciers-even-in-cooler-climate-of-the-19th-century-8795396.html

Sooty air from coal burning triggered the initial melting of the mountain glaciers in the European Alps in the second half of the 19th Century when it caused the snow to turn grey and so reflect less sunlight back into space, scientists said.



The soot, known as black carbon, caused the glaciers to absorb more heat than usual, causing the ice to recede year by year even though the regional temperatures were colder than today, the researchers found.

Alpine glaciers have receded significantly over the past century but much of this melting is believed to have resulted from rising global temperatures caused by climate change. Scientists could not explain why glaciers started to melt as long ago as the 1860s, when Alpine temperatures were still low.

However, the initial melting appears to have been caused by deposits of black carbon building up on the pristine snow covering the glaciers as a result of industrial expansion around Europe in the late 19th Century fuelled by coal burning, said Thomas Painter of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

“Snow without soot is the brightest surface on the planet. When soot is deposited on snow, it absorbs sunlight and then conducts that energy to the surrounding snow. This is effectively an additional way for sunlight to warm and melt the snow,” Dr Painter said.

“The soot on the glacier ice has a relatively small impact because the glacier ice is already quite dark. Soot darkens snow, warms it and melts it earlier, exposes glaciers to sunlight earlier and so leads to faster glacier melting and retreat,” he said.

Records of glacial retreat in the central European Alps go back as far as the 1500s. This data shows that between 1860 and 1930, the large valley glaciers of the Alps retreated on average by nearly 0.6 miles, yet the local temperatures had continued to cool by nearly 1C during the same period of time.

This mismatch between the regional temperatures of the Alps and what was happening to the glaciers posed a problem for scientists, Dr Painter said. “Something was missing from the equation,” he said.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at ice core samples from a series of glaciers and posited that the heat absorption caused by industrial soot landing on the snow.

Computer models showed that the effect of the black carbon could explain why glaciers started to melt at a time when temperatures were continuing to be low at the end of a cooler-than-average period in Europe known as the ‘little ice age’, which had lasted about 300 years.

“Where soot was deposited on snow cover, the computer modelling data suggest that the impact reached at times to the equivalent of a 4C increase in air temperature – markedly greater than current warming by the modern industrialisation increases in carbon dioxide,” Dr Painter said.

“However, where the soot fell on vegetation or rock, the impact was negligible. They were already very absorptive of sunlight in the visible wavelengths, so the soot did little to change their energy fluxes. In effect, the soot targeted the glaciers,” he said.

In recent decades, sooty deposits are less of a problem in western European countries because of clean-air legislation and the use of filtering technology that has cleaned up industrial emissions of black carbon.

“The region of focus of soot into snow is now Asia. Soot is increasing in India and China due to industrialisation – sloshing back and forth across the snows of the Himalaya. The measurements are so sparse there, but initial results suggest profound impacts from dust and soot,” Dr Painter said.

This one is from National Georgraphic

Soot and Dirt Is Melting Snow and Ice Around the World
New report highlights increased loss in Greenland ice cap from dust and soot.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/

It's easy to imagine new snow so bright that we must avert our eyes even while wearing sunglasses. What scientists are discovering, though, is this brilliant whiteness of snow and ice is increasingly being dimmed by air pollution.

From Greenland's ice sheets to Himalayan glaciers and the snowpacks of western North America, layers of dust and soot are darkening the color of glaciers and snowpacks, causing them to absorb more solar heat and melt more quickly, and earlier in spring.

This trend toward darker snow from soot and dirt has been observed for years. Sources vary from dust blowing off deserts and snow-free Arctic land, to soot from power plants, forest fires, and wood-burning stoves. But now soot and dust are taking a greater toll, according to a report released this week, causing Greenland's ice sheets to darken—and melt—at a faster rate in spring than before 2009.

silversand
Explorer
Explorer
Wm. Elliot wrote:
A simple question: what caused previous ice ages and subsequent warming before man arrived?


...how do you know that "ice ages" actually existed? How did you know that "warming periods" (interglacials) actually occurred?

If you believe that glacial and interglacial (warming) periods happened (I assume you do, since you bring it up), then, via inference, we are currently in an interglacial period currently because we are not frozen solid, last I checked.

"We" know that glacial and interglacial warming periods had existed because paleoclimate scientists use using all the scientific proxies which established that glacial and interglacial periods actually happened; the same chemical, geological, paleontological, atmospheric GHG analysis, ice coring and ocean bed sediment coring we use to establish that we are indeed in a period of planetary-scale warming, as measured by satellite sensing, and interpolation of hundreds of thousands of "point" temperature sampling.

One of the strongest "proxy" data a scientist involved in planetary climate monitoring can use to track what is called 'the greenhouse effect" (feedback loop that generates atmospheric heating at the human x,y,z scale (humans live somewhere on planet surface at x,y, at altitudes of some z) is: the atmospheric GHG concentrations (ie. methane, CO2, etc, etc, etc). Scientists currently have VERY accurate measurements of CO2 (a very strong GHG, but not the strongest) going back just about 650,000 years. And currently, since about 1950, the planet's atmospheric CO2 levels had reached the same level shown in data that describes the atmos. CO2 levels around 340,000 years ago. So, atmospheric CO2 --one of the top drivers of planetary warming (the greenhouse effect), has been fluctuating between ~300ppm and ~178ppm for the past 650,000 years.....now here is the scary thing: since 1950, the CO2 natural balance has been rocketing up, WAY past where the planet had ever seen it recorded reliably (650,000 years). The earth has actually been "warming at an accelerating rate for the past 1300 years. Earth has a natural CO2 budget: and it "sinks" it pretty well, thank you very much...HOWEVER, the human generation of CO2 (as an apropos example) actually exceeds the planet's natural ability to "sink" the un-natural "overage". What "we" don't currently know is: at what point will the earth's natural GHG (say, CO2) sink mechanisms fail (or, in technical terms: saturate, or fail altogether)?? And, even worse, at what point will much more destructive GHGs (like methane) be released into the atmosphere (via permafrost thawing: occurring at an alarming rate now!), and massive insect attacks on global forests to release enormous new quantities of CO2 (one example of many: the entire Southwest evergreen forests are being attacked by insects in a massive way, from climate change, causing the die-off of every evergreen tree there-on, in the relatively near future), and from massive global deforestation and forest fires (underway since at least the 1970s/1980s)....not to mention the out of control fossil-fuel burning (coal especially) ?

It is relatively easy (and fairly painless) to implement non fossil-fuel transportation (especially automobiles) globally, as is happening now. We just need to bring down those "extra" human-injected gigatons of CO2 that can't be naturally sequestered by the planet. Why play with the planet's ability to bring down all that "extra" global GHGs naturally? Who knows what the consequences would be; so why not be reasonable, and practice the precautionary principal? The alternative could be the near extinction of man and many species, or even worse.

Mixed into the "controversy" is the input from scientists who have obviously failed to adequately explain this 'situation", and the huge non scientific "foundations" funding of the Climate Change Counter-Movement (CCCM): 91 organizations that are funded by 140 different foundations that oppose climate change to the tune of $900 million per year (among the 140 foundations are big oil). (Site: Drexel University paper, Brulle et al).

Anyhow, this is some "fuel for thought" (pardon the pun!) :B

Silver-
Silver
2004 Chevy Silverado 2500HD 4x4 6.0L Ext/LB Tow Package 4L80E Michelin AT2s| Outfitter Caribou

daveB110
Explorer
Explorer
MexicoWanderer, I hated to put that out, but it took me quite awhile to read al that old stuff in my journal of the year. What I am not going to do is to read the next one; I do remember one - at least one- time when everyone came out with their northern jackets on in the morning. It was cloudy, likely campers around were getting worried about their solar batteries, and if it continued too long the odd generator would cough to life. It was an unwritten rule, no generators on the beach where we were. Best of the New Year, to one and all!

briansue
Explorer
Explorer
Confirmed: The $35,000 Tesla Model 3 Will Be Unveiled in March 2016

Pre-orders start then, though production won't begin until 2017.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12983/35000-tesla-model-iii-coming-in-2017/

UPDATE, September 3, 2015: Tesla chief Elon Musk took to Twitter last night, as he is wont to do, to drop some key facts about the upcoming Model 3, Tesla's take on an affordable EV. Production will start in two years, which jibes with what we already knew. Musk also teased fans, however, by promising to reveal the car in March of next year.


2016 Tesla Model S

http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/tesla_model-s_2016#mainReview

Prices range from $70,000 for the base Model S 70 to around $135,000 for an absolutely top-of-the-line P90D with all the options. Thta makes Model S an expensive car that competes with mid-size and full-size luxury sedans, though Tesla has ambitious plans for a $35,000 electric car it says it will unveil during 2016.


Tesla Model S

http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s

$71,100

As both the ultimate eco-friendly luxury car and an absurdly fast sports sedan, we simply love the Model S. With an aptly named “Ludicrous Mode,” the top-spec, all-wheel-drive P90D hits 60 mph in 2.8 seconds. And yes, the optional Autopilot can do the driving for you in certain situations. The other trim levels offer varying performance and range as you move down the lineup, but all offer a classy cabin and electrifying driving experience. We gave the Model 70 and 70D a 10Best award for 2016.


How much tax do we pay on a gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel?

The taxes on retail gasoline and diesel fuel, in cents per gallon, as of July 1, 2015:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=10&t=10

. . . . . . . . . . . Gasoline . . . . . .Diesel
Federal . . . . . . 18.40 . . . . . . . . .24.40
Average of all states . . .26.49 . . 27.24

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006. The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The inflation rate from 1993 until 2015 was 64.6 percent.

Congress has not raised the federal tax on fuel since 1993 even though inflation has gone up almost 65%. No wonder roads crumble and bridges fall down.

SophiaTioga
Explorer
Explorer
It's not so difficult to make some changes to lifestyle that can make a difference. My husband and I bought a Volkswagen eGolf (100% electric) for our second car that cost $30,000 and has a 100 mile range. It takes 30 minutes to fully charge. It is our primary day-to-day vehicle and is super fun to drive. It's not difficult to be part of the solution, you don't have to give up RVing or move to an apartment tower. Just be conscious and make informed decisions.

I have a solar panel on the rig. No big deal. And if I feel like walking 6 blocks to the grocery store, I do. You might live farther from stuff than I do, so maybe you combine some errands or bring someone with you. I consider it a very small pay-forward for my kids.

briansue
Explorer
Explorer
Say Global warming is a fact. How do you connect that fact to carbon taxes? Where is the linkage between cooler temperatures or alternative energy solutions and higher taxes. Maybe higher taxation leads to businesses and individuals to choose cheaper, more carbon emitting methods of production and consumption.
A case history to study is the Irish potato famine. There were crop failures of potatoes. Prices rose, as those prices rose, the demand for potatoes actually increased, setting off a cycle that eventually led to famine. The reason demand rose despite higher prices was alternative foods were even more expensive than potatoes. Hence after buying potatoes the people had even less money for those alternatives and instead demanded more potatoes, which was the only thing they could afford. Lack of demand for the other foodstuffs forced those farmers to try and raise potatoes, since that was the only thing that could sell. Those potato crops failed and "bingo" there were no foodstuffs at all.
Maybe the same thing will happen with carbon taxes. Disposable income will decrease due to higher taxes. People and businesses won't be able to risk or afford to buy new technology. Therefore the demand for the new technology won't exist, so it won't be invented and implemented. There is a reason Tesla cars are $100,000 plus. For that type of technology to become mainstream it first requires the high end customer to adopt it. Ditto big screen TVs, Computers, Cell Phones etc. They all needed the high end consumer to jump start the businesses. Raise taxes and alternative energy might lose that Jump start.


Some might say apples to oranges but even that is not close to this post - this way too far off the wall. You obviously are not paying much attention to what is going on as you seem to have little to know knowledge whatsoever. Potato Famine? Really?

Tesla Cars - Elon Musk is building a $5 billion plant near Reno, NV to produce new battery technology to get the cost of electric cars down to affordable by consumers - not worth the investment otherwise - and many of the world's other geniuses are investing. Why would they invest without reason. You need to study the topic a bit before you post comments as you obviously do not know much.

But none of this is about that. Someone posted about weather and someone else related it to climate change and it is not the same thing. So many seem to think the term global warming means the earth temperatures are increasing - which is true - but that is not the point. I keep saying I am not the one to argue this point. Anyone interested - really interested - can research the topic to learn about it - far too complex to even remotely touch on here.

I doubt anyone would suggest that coal does not pollute. Coal creates electricity. But more and more coal plants are converting to natural gas - because gas is far cheaper and cleaner. Lots of other baby steps forward. No one says solar or wind or whatever is an answer - there are many answers. And with new technology are new jobs. Who remembers the typewriter or letter writing or mail - now we have word processors in our computers and email and tweets or whatever - texts. Things change - and sometimes for the better. Imagine of the millions of people in our cities today still road horses and the horses left manure - as they used to in city streets. Things change. There are reasons. Reality.

Apples and oranges.

westernrvparkow
Explorer
Explorer
briansue wrote:
A simple question: what caused previous ice ages and subsequent warming before man arrived?


Not even remotely a simple question and absolutely nothing to do with what is happening today. Thousands or millions or even hundreds of years ago man was not burning fossil fuels to power electric generators or motor vehicles of every type imaginable. What happened previously is irrelevant to what is happening today. There is no simple answer. It is not a simple question. Never before has what is happening now happened because never before has man had such a hand in it. There is no comparison of what happened before to what is happening now. How is this not obvious to even the most casual observer? Or are not not observing. Science provides facts. This not some wild theory. Where do you think all the stuff we are spewing goes and what do you think it does? Do you really think anything like it has ever happened before? Explain when and how. Do you really think someone is making all of this up like some movie plot? I would agree that it has certainly been presented poorly but that does not mean it is not true. The air is full of it in measurable amounts. No one is making this up. Why is it so difficult to comprehend. Denial? Maybe if we ignore it it will go away? Seriously? Do you really think what happened before has anything to do with today? Where have you been?
Say Global warming is a fact. How do you connect that fact to carbon taxes? Where is the linkage between cooler temperatures or alternative energy solutions and higher taxes. Maybe higher taxation leads to businesses and individuals to choose cheaper, more carbon emitting methods of production and consumption.
A case history to study is the Irish potato famine. There were crop failures of potatoes. Prices rose, as those prices rose, the demand for potatoes actually increased, setting off a cycle that eventually led to famine. The reason demand rose despite higher prices was alternative foods were even more expensive than potatoes. Hence after buying potatoes the people had even less money for those alternatives and instead demanded more potatoes, which was the only thing they could afford. Lack of demand for the other foodstuffs forced those farmers to try and raise potatoes, since that was the only thing that could sell. Those potato crops failed and "bingo" there were no foodstuffs at all.
Maybe the same thing will happen with carbon taxes. Disposable income will decrease due to higher taxes. People and businesses won't be able to risk or afford to buy new technology. Therefore the demand for the new technology won't exist, so it won't be invented and implemented. There is a reason Tesla cars are $100,000 plus. For that type of technology to become mainstream it first requires the high end customer to adopt it. Ditto big screen TVs, Computers, Cell Phones etc. They all needed the high end consumer to jump start the businesses. Raise taxes and alternative energy might lose that Jump start.

briansue
Explorer
Explorer
happened many times over long before man even arrived.


Perhaps someone can explain which / what / how / where / when pollutants - which have most assuredly been created by man - got into the atmosphere and the waters of the earth before man arrived? When did this happen and how did it happen? Why would the leaders (highest leaders - presidents - premiers - prime ministers - etc.) of over 150 different countries go to Paris and spend a couple weeks trying to figure out what to do and eventually hammer out some sort of agreement - even the Pope is on board? Are all of these people and the world's leading scientists all complete morons? I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can say this has happened before. If man was not here then how did this pollution occur? It was cold before? It was hot before? That has nothing to do with what is going on today. That this is a man-made situation is a scientific fact. It is not a matter of agree or disagree. It is fact. Apparently there are those who choose to ignore facts. But ignoring them has never changed facts. That this happened before is not an answer because it most certainly has never happened before. People keep talking about weather and how it is cold or hot or rainy or snowy or whatever. Of course it has snowed before. And it has been hot before. The question is why these things happened then and why they are happening now. They are not talking about weather - though weather can factor in. There are boatloads of scientific facts to support the fact that this is man-made and that man can make a difference - bad or good.

Wm_Elliot
Explorer
Explorer
" Seriously? Do you really think what happened before has anything to do with today? Where have you been?"
Climate changes in the past set a precedent that assures me that what is happening now has happened before without man's influence.
I can equate: Hearing all the horror stories about Mexico - starting back in 1986 when we first started traveling in Mexico. We found that if we traveled in Mexico we weren't murdered despite hearing all sorts of warnings from folks on how dangerous Mexico is. We checked it out for ourselves and learned through reasoning and experiences.
Mexico wasn't what the experts said it was, and I'm thankful that I didn't buy into the prevailing consensus.
That's what thinking people do.
Briansue, you appear to be frustrated and incredulous that I question the crisis you accept as genuine. Me, I'm frustrated that so many folks can be convinced that man is causing what happened many times over long before man even arrived.
Who's right, who's smarter ? time will tell, but for me Climate Change is today's equivalent of the Cardiff Giant.
Let's agree to disagree, eh?

MEXICOWANDERER
Explorer
Explorer
Senor Dave B110,

I would like an extra large serving of CROW with all the trimmings.

I was WRONG about the date - no question...

The trip down that year BEGAN December, 2003.

I loudly yelled it was chilling cool February 2003.

WRONG

It was February 2004

I departed Boca de Iguanas, 4 February 2004 and returned to Las Penas August 2004 from Pananjachel Guatemala.

I owe you an apology. I am sorry. Your concise journal records bothered me to the point of me going down Memory Lane magnifying glass in hand. It did not take that long before my face got red. I am fussy about keeping dates and facts straight...

Happy Trails!

MEXICOWANDERER
Explorer
Explorer
When people stand around a campfire dressed in hats, coats and gloves at 8:00PM blowing clouds of vapor it ain't 68 or 58.

It chased me the hell down the coast. Warm weather -cool or cold weather spells are natural. Ain't getting senile so you can bet your hind end it was COLD in 03 and it lasted longer than a week. Daytime was OK. But the nights were like San Francisco CA. In 2001 same thing in La Manzanilla
Hotel Puesto del Sol. But in '97 same month I lay atop the sheets same room with the ceiling fan on high all through the night. South of Manzanillo is another world. Consistantly warm day and night. Down here Winters can be far more uncomfortable than summer - the humidity remains the same but afternoon cloud cover and thunderstorm downdrafts make summer delightful.

Ooooo halfway down the Baja peninsula last week I saw FORTY TWO DEGREES at 0500. I do remember being rather shocked in 03 same trip on the way to Guatemala Tehuantepec was 106F with the Tehuantepecker winds roaring at 50 mph. In Las Penas it was 88 at 1500 hours and now past midnight 76. Going back to the peninsula next week continuing with car rehab and Dr appts. Thank god for Volaris and private pilots. I PMA'd a Beechcraft twin, for the ride to Lazaro. When the car is fixed I move to Ensenada for the surgeries then I am GONE. Las Penas in the winter and Guatemala or Nicaragua for the summer. Live somewhere for 10-years the pueblito becomes a bit boring. My kid and granddaughters can survive six months without grandpa.

Nevertheless I remember weather winters and summers well. Feb 2003 at Boca was too cool for me. I'm going to be traveing with my new Thinsulate level 3 comforter. And three Fantastic Fan Endless Breeze fans. The eldest gets new brushes and bushings next week.

The key is to be prepared. Then the weather isn't such a big deal.

briansue
Explorer
Explorer
A simple question: what caused previous ice ages and subsequent warming before man arrived?


Not even remotely a simple question and absolutely nothing to do with what is happening today. Thousands or millions or even hundreds of years ago man was not burning fossil fuels to power electric generators or motor vehicles of every type imaginable. What happened previously is irrelevant to what is happening today. There is no simple answer. It is not a simple question. Never before has what is happening now happened because never before has man had such a hand in it. There is no comparison of what happened before to what is happening now. How is this not obvious to even the most casual observer? Or are not not observing. Science provides facts. This not some wild theory. Where do you think all the stuff we are spewing goes and what do you think it does? Do you really think anything like it has ever happened before? Explain when and how. Do you really think someone is making all of this up like some movie plot? I would agree that it has certainly been presented poorly but that does not mean it is not true. The air is full of it in measurable amounts. No one is making this up. Why is it so difficult to comprehend. Denial? Maybe if we ignore it it will go away? Seriously? Do you really think what happened before has anything to do with today? Where have you been?

Wm_Elliot
Explorer
Explorer
A simple question: what caused previous ice ages and subsequent warming before man arrived?