Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2008 Archive' started by Magnetic Poles, Mar 20, 2008.
Global warming is impacting flora and fauna.
"While some plants and animals use the amount of sunlight to figure out when it is spring, others base it on heat building in their tissues, much like a roasting turkey with a pop-up thermometer.'
I suppose that's a valid comparison as to what this is all about. How many more Thanksgivings and rising temps before we don't even have to cook our turkey?
Seriously, the earth has gone through many phases of the last freeze/first thaw/ripening changing south to north and vice versa. If pears are coming out 2 weeks earlier in Oregon, how far south were they already coming at such a time? and were conditions so much worse at that location?
Cheer up. Maybe that solar flare with kill most us off in the next 2 or 3 years, and we can leave those butterflies to flourish.
Now there is an encouraging thought! :laugh:
I hope Jesus will return before I can cook a turkey without an oven! Sidewalk turkey seems wrong on many levels!
Question about the equinox?
They set the date for Easter by the equinox, which evidently changes every year. This year Easter comes really early, which means so does the equinox. After the equinox, dont the days get longer, thus making it warmer?
And if the equinox comes earlier, doesnt it seem reasonable that it will get warm sooner?
I am not really sure about this theory, and maybe I should have researched it first, and I will, but it is just a thought to consider.
The equinox doesn't change enough that it's noticed in a human lifetime. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox. Since the equinox occurs about 1:15 GMT tomorrow, the 21st, and the full moon also occurs the 21st (after the exact time of equinox), this Sunday, the 23rd, is that first following Sunday. Next year it will be April 12.
It was the first day of Spring here in Wisconsin today, and we celebrated with over a foot of snow. Somehow I don't think any flora here is going to be confused into getting active early.
We had our first major snowstorm of the season on December 1st, and it looks like we'll have snow on the ground into April, so we're having over 4 months of full-fledged winter. Many places in Wisconsin had record snowfalls, and there were long stretches where 32 degrees would have felt like a heat wave.
Love that global warming.
Actually, that is exactly right. Global warming does throw the entire climate out of whack, so that you get places where it is actually colder. Yet, while Wisconsin had record snowfalls, Houston never got below freezing this winter for the first time since records have been kept.
MP, I asked this question in another thread, and don't think it ever got a notice. But it's a serious question, so I'll ask again.
The environment, and our stewardship of it, IS important, obviously. My mom used to say that I came out of the womb against pollution, littering, and hurting this world we live in due to our own greed or carelessness--so I really DO want to understand global warming and all its implications.
My problem is that I've read just as much "science" debunking global warming as a real man-made threat as I have "science" supporting it.....and I say "science", because some IS opinion, some IS business-driven, some is hysteria---on both sides of the issue. But since there are REAL scientists on both sides of the issue--with convincing information from each (at least to a non-scientist such as myself)--HOW DO I DETERMINE WHAT IS 'RIGHT'?
I mean, when you have real experts on BOTH sides saying things that are "polar-opposites" (sorry, couldn't resist the little bad pun there!), how do I go about slogging through it and trust the conclusions THEY draw?
1 Follow the money --
A-Are any of the adherents of GW doing research? If so, there is always the possibility that their pushing of GW is nothing more than assuring that their grants don't dry up.
B-Who is benefitting from this idea of buying/selling carbon credits? I am totally in the dark how this idea works, BUT if there is buying/selling going on, then somebody is making money on the deal. Who, how & how much ???
2 Why is it that only (AFAICT) the US is the one that is expected to make the concessions to decrease CO2 emissions, while (again AFAICT), no other country is expected to do squat?
3 All leading me to surmise that, while GW may or may not be a real issue, the left has found a scare tactic to use to try to get control of our lives that would never be given willingly, or without a fight.
Back in the 70s thereabout, the big issue was GLOBAL COOLING; we were headed into another ICE AGE!!! Didn't happen, (or work), so now its GW. (I guess we over-corrected for GC, so now we have GW:BangHead: )
In any case, it's unlikely that man has as much influence on global weather, warming or cooling, as some of the liberals would like to think. That is just an overblown obsession of man's importance in the scheme of nature!
Hopeful, that is a very good question. I am not a climatologist, but I am a reasonably intelligent person.
The way I look on it is this:
The fact that our atmosphere is a very thin layer of protection and life-giving air, and is a delicate balance in nature means that it is not big enough to continue to absorb our fossil fuel burning indefinitely without impact. It is wise to minimize and use newer technologies to find ways to reduce this output, as this is the only place our species can survive for the forseeable future.
The ozone hole over Antarctica has been measurably growing much larger, coincidental with the accelleration of the melting of glaciers. Glacier National Park will within a few years time, be devoid of glaciers.
Even if you could prove today (which you cannot) that human beings have had zero effect on the warming of the planet, the fact is the average temperature IS rising. Even if it is nature doing it, it will have impact on human beings. Therefore should we not take wise, stewardly steps to minimize our impact, and perhaps even offset whatever nature does?
The planet will survive fine if we ruin it for us...but we may not. Even the economic impact of flooding coastal cities would be far greater than the cost of addressing it while there may still be time (which is not a given).
The Global Warming deniers are just as politically motivated as they accuse "tree hugging liberals" to be. The problem is, people often vote against their own best interests. Our government is run by corporate interests, not by the people's interests. The lobbyists put out reports and studies, paid for by their client companies, that are the talking points of those opposed to a reasoned approach.
These are just a few observations from my vantage point since you asked. I think that many so-called scientists and scientific studies denying human impact on global warming are really corporate funded studies that give whatever results are being paid for...not true science at all.
Thanks, MP, for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully--and just-want-peace, thank you as well. I got BOTH sides from you two! Both of you have compelling arguments, and both of you refer to the fact that you should "follow the money" of the research being done....which highlights MY dilemma perfectly! :thumbs:
Since "somebody's" money is funding the naysayers as well as the doomsdayers (sorry, don't mean to be unkind or simplistic with those terms, they're just easy monikers), this makes me skeptical of everything.....and I don't like feeling that way about something so important. I was, in fact, ASTONISHED to learn that there is an apparently large segment of the scientific community that completely disparages the global warming science and conventional wisdom--with their OWN scientific arguments that are at least as compelling for someone like me who is NOT a scientist.
But it seems "obvious" to me that mismanagement of our planet's resources is unwise and goes against our command to stewardship. What's bothersome is that it is a political issue and that anyone on ANY side would lie, meddle with real scientific data to suit their purposes, or allow greed to determine how they treat this earth God gave us to tend. I agree with J-W-P that it may be overblown to think that man could have such a huge adverse impact on what God created --after all, wouldn't He have created it knowing how we'd end up heating our houses??? BUT, that fact does not absolve us of our responsibility to "handle with care" what God entrusted to us. So, MP, your point, "Therefore should we not take wise, stewardly steps to minimize our impact, and perhaps even offset whatever nature does?" is well taken. And to THAT end, only God's leading will answer my questions adequately. Thank you.
Can I say something very bluntly here? Global warming is probably happening to some extent. The debate is really about why, and about what the results will be. We are indeed called to be stewards of God's Creation. However, I am offended - DEEPLY OFFENDED! - by the suggestion that my Lord did such a shoddy job making this planet that the mere variation of a couple of degrees in global temperature can cause catastrophic changes that will horribly damage it. I don't worry one bit about global warming. Why? Simple: I TRUST GOD.
I don't understand your offense. Humans can indeed mess up creation. We could burn forests, drop nuclear bombs over wetlands, even create nuclear winter. God's creation is wonderful. We should take care of it. That doesn't mean it is shoddily made...it is a finely-tuned ecosystem with which we have been entrusted.
You can easily be killed by a bullet, or even a blunt force to the head. Does that mean God did a shoddy job on you?
Good points, but I do believe that you are over estimating the magnitude of man's influence.
For instance, look at the effects of St Helens eruption. Totally devastating in the short term to a localized area. And while I have not been to the area, I seriously doubt that I could go now and see more than a minor effect of that disaster. And this is far more than man can do.
In other words what I'm saying is that while we could (can?) have a localized short-term effect on the weather, it's highly unlikely that anything we do could overcome the checks & balances that God has built in to the climate system of the entire globe.
As to your last sentence, you are talking about an extreme finite "force" affecting another extreme finite "entity", so no comparison with GW.
We're not talking about anything like that in regards to Earth. An all-out nuclear war would be the global equivalent of human inflicted damage to a body from a bullet or severe head trauma. Our bodies can absorb a lot of lesser trauma and come out of it healed back to normal except maybe for some superficial scarring. I believe the Earth also has the resiliency to absorb things like relatively small variations in global temperature without being severely or permanently damaged, because it and us were both made by the same all-knowing and all-powerful God.
I have no doubt the earth can bounce back from damage. It has taken much worse. But will it be a fit place, a habitable place for humans? Maybe not.