I guess it wouldn't be beneficial if you like the northern hemisphere covered in ice. I think we could safely lose quite a few hills and mountains myself. Having live through many of them I suppose you would.
And that's your problem. You want to look a brief out of context snapshot and declare disaster. When if you look at the big picture there is no cause for alarm at all.
Actually, I'm looking at the rapid desertification of previously fertile regions and its impact on the humans living there. You mean the big picture that includes Pleistocene-era ice cores?
Is this another of those fifty million phantom climate refugees? Desertification has many causes and yes some are man made (see California Delta Smelt consequences relating to preservation of). The big picture that goes back throughout the existence of humanity as a species. It's been warmer it's been cooler. It's a natural cycle. And one which recent events have shown is not entirely understood.
No. Over the course of millennia, yes, there is a natural cycle. But to dismiss the conspicuous spike since the beginning of the Industrial Era is disingenuous.
You've got it backwards, G. The "conspicuous spike since the beginning of the Industrial Era" is a return to normalcy from the Little Ice Age. And you know what that was caused by? Pirates. Yes, if you look back, the Golden Age of Piracy maps almost perfectly to the Little Ice Age. And both end around the time we wiped out the Barbary pirates. Of late, Global Warming(tm) has been on the out. But you know what we HAVE seen an upswing in? So there you go. If you want it cooler, you need to tolerate some piracy. If you want it warmer you wipe out the pirates. They're still doing the research on the Science of this, but it stands to reason. Pirates are cool. So more pirates equals cooler climate.
To begin with, it hasn't been a "conspicuous spike since the beginning of the Industrial Era", it's been a general upwards trend since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's pretty transparent why you and many others want to ignore that and focus only on the last century or so, but again, the planet doesn't work that way.
No it's been shown in shorter periods of time as well. How long have been actively and somewhat accurately recording temperature data? Since roughly the beginning of the Industrial Era. Have we witnessed changes in temperatures yep up and down same as always. Such as did you know global temperature averages dropped in the sixties and carried on into the seventies. The disingenuous in this scenario are those who claim that we understand the Climate well enough to know exactly how it is driven and that man's paltry doings are the primary driver of any change. What is the ideal Global Climate condition anyway? One without a Sahara Desert? Well you'll need an ice age for that. Same with lower sea levels. You want to turn England into a vineyard like in the Middle Ages? Well you need to raise the global temperature a few more degrees. Same with longer growing seasons. Here's an interesting tidbit the Earth having Polar Ice Caps is an aberration. [YT="just for fun."]F_G_-SdAN04[/YT]
Let's see. Climate Computer models are at the heart of the study of Climate Change. As a result of this report all current Climate Computer models are now(snicker) inaccurate. Meaning that everything we knew about Climate Change has to be reevaluated. Nope I'm error free with a solid grasp of what the CLOUD report means for the study of Climate Change. It means the science is far from settled.
You proceed from a false assumption. Science is an ongoing process. New data and new understandings of previous data mean it's not something that can be "settled."
take a dig at (so) definition and take a jab at (so ) tv. to insult or needle someone. Ahem Just for fun
^You're citing Gore? Cite a scientist saying the science is "settled." Take your time. Oh, and watch out for the dragons at the corners...
I'm not so stupid as to mistake Al Gore for a scientist. You, on the other hand, always fall back on insults when people fail to be impressed with your dictionary-fu. If that's all you've got...
I'll bite. Global climate change exists, and always has, as a part of the natural cycle of the planet and would exist if no human had ever walked the planet. there is very very VERY little we can do about it, and even what we can do will have a greater negative impact on humanity than doing nothing*. *Note: i do not mean "doing nothing to be good stewards of the environment, I mean doing nothing to affect the process of "global warming"
The truly sad thing here is that you think you are being clever. When all you're managing is to demonstrate an enormous amount of stupidity.
Being good stewards alone would have a tremendous impact...if everyone did it. If it were preached from every pulpit in America, that would be a start. Instead, it's too often painted as being solely the realm of "them godless dirty hippies," as a kind of justification for owning the biggest damn SUV on the block. That said, there's something to be said for happy accident. Call it the "If Fleming hadn't been such a slob, we might never have had penicillin" effect. There was an article a few weeks back about the impact of coal-burning in China actually having a *cooling* effect on global temperatures. Now, that's not to say that the air in Beijing wouldn't choke a horse, but if there were a way to balance out the pollutants, some intriguing technology might emerge from that bit of knowledge. So if the layman/woman were to work on the stewardship part, that might buy some time for the scientists to stop sending each other nasty emails and get back to work.
Hence the whole "church of environmentalism" thing. Because that's where it comes from. It isn't about the environment, not really, it's about legislating morality, which the rest of your statement shows quite handily. Why does anyone need any kind of "justification" to own a particular type of vehicle? Who are you to tell them they need such justification? See, this is where the legislating morality thing comes in, because you and others like you see "owning the biggest damn SUV on the block" as immoral - otherwise you would not have phrased it that way or even brought it up for that matter. The same goes with the statement about "preaching." Which probably has a lot to do with those massive clouds produced by all that burning coal blocking out the sun in the areas they cover. It's the same reason there was some slight warming in the US following the grounding of all flights in US airspace, which was caused by the lack of contrails. But then we're also talking very slight changes in temperature - just enough to make a case for there being a connection.
If that's where you set the bar for action on a problem, those interested in preserving the status quo will simply focus their efforts on muddying the waters and prolonging the "disagreement" as long as possible. Random example? http://www.cigline.net/?action=news&discount=cigarettes&news=36
Oh please, are you going to be like one of those people that thinks ID is a valid scientific theory because you don't know what the phrase "scientific theory" means? Or, let me guess, you're purposely being obtuse.
As I said earlier what the CERN report really concluded was (to quote from their press release): This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.
