dailytelegraph.com.au — "As the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed." Professor Bob Carter is with 50 other scientists and technicians aboard the drilling ship Joides Resolution, the workhorse of the Ocean Drilling Program.
Dec 9, 2009 View in Crawl 4
juslenDec 9, 2009
Someone should research Spain and Germany to see how well their green energy efforts have gone. They subsidize everything which means they lose money. Clean energy has to evolve and become affordable. Society has to slowly wean itself off of fossil fuels and like you said, fundamentally change their way of life. Solar and wind power.. great for certain regions of the United States. Here in Wisconsin, much like in Germany we are far enough North that it becomes difficult to get enough solar power to make the creation and purchase of solar panels cost effective. And people seem to forget that fertilizer comes from fossil fuels. And that coal is burned to create electricity that makes it possible to run the factories that develop and manufacture clean technology.It has to be cost effective. If its not, our competitors will our produce us and industry will go overseas offsetting our carbon savings. The entire world has to contribute or its simply a waste of time and money.
vigrocoDec 9, 2009
Nobody argues against these, but being intellectually dishonest by using environmental alarmist tactics to promote these is still wrong.
evildemonicDec 9, 2009
@InfiniteNothing: Thank you for those links...some interesting perspectives to think about.Ok, I pulled the ~3% number out of my ass (well, my aging memory, but same thing all too often). If we don't take the actual MAJOR greenhouse gas into account, the real number is 5.53% (3.225% of which is CO2...so I was kinda close). If you include water vapor, which you must admit is by far the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas, that number drops to 0.28%. This means that if all human activities stopped today, there would be no real change in climate patterns.You might be very interested to read this: <a class="user" href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. ...</a>Pretty well laid out explanation of things from a non-extremist (from the right OR left). Don't forget to check the references at the bottom of the article.
ninjaofpatienceDec 9, 2009
Just him and most of scientific community and anyone who's bothered to research the data behind the claims.
ninjaofpatienceDec 9, 2009
Dugg for science!
infinitenothingDec 10, 2009
A bit about water, Water is indeed the biggest greenhouse gas but it's short lived in the atmosphere. If we let out a bit of extra water here and there it'll just rain down in another part of the country a couple weeks later. It is kept in strict equilibrium by the the weather patterns that wring out all the extra water over rainy areas.If we put out CO2 it's out there for thousands of years.
emjayseaDec 10, 2009
Please see the replies below. That's just another ruse by deniers.
evildemonicDec 10, 2009
Valid points. By properly including water vapor, however, you can see that the effect humans have (even if we were to double our CO2 output today) is incredibly small.