Do you believe in global warming?

[lynnvinc]

Okay, for the sake of argument. Let us close down the coal mines, spend billions of dollars on windmills, spend billions of dollars sun related energy and then, instead of warming, the Earth begins to cool down - considerably. Windmills do not work well in the snow and ice. The cost of coal and oil has by that time sky-rocketed and the sun is not shinning all that much in the winter. People are freezing to death in the snow covered streets of the big cities.

What have we done to the children’s future then? Global cooling is a far greater danger than global warming could ever be and is a more likely scenario given the knowledge of the thousands upon thousands of years of ice ages and the very few thousands of years of warmth. It is easy to be worried about global warming when we are warm and well fed. Being cold and hungry without the real resources to deal with it, will be a very serious problem.

Why would the price of coal and oil sky-rocket? The price usually goes down when demand goes down. And we’d have all that coal and oil to help us keep warm AND warm the planet back up again thru the greenhouse effect, if we should get into an ice age.

I say keep that coal & oil in the ground until we (our future generations) really need it.

RE weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, that can mainly be done by becoming a lot more energy and resource efficient and conservative, which can lower America’s energy demands by more than 50%, even more than 75% without reducing productivity or living standards – see natcap.org. And then with an energy demand of only 50%, 25%, or less of what it is today, we can run a good portion of much smaller demand on various alt energy sources, and perhaps bring our GHG emissions down by 70% to 90%. Some concerned about GW are suggesting nuclear power, and maybe that can be part of the mix pretty much end our need for fossil fuels.

So keep it in the gound, I say, in case future generations may have some need for it. But they might never need to use that coal and oil to keep warm or warm the earth thru the GH effect, since the sun is slowly slowly getting brighter and giving us more warmth on its way to self-destruction in some 5 billion years. At least some climate scientists have suggested there is no possibility now of the earth ever again going into an ice age, due to our current anthropogenic warming (and the rapidity of it) and the sun getting brighter.

Also global warming is as dangerous, perhaps even more so, than global cooling. Some of the greatest extinction events have been due to great warming periods of some 6C warmer than today. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM

 

[lynnvinc]

Besides CO2 is a good thing. It is what the GREEN plants thrive on.

You’re right, but just as gluttony can kill us, it can also harm plants. Here is something I wrote for a paper on food issues and climate change:

What might global warming and its effects mean for food and food production? First we need to address the argument that elevated carbon dioxide levels increase crop production. Aside from this being disingenuous because the CO2 is also causing warming and other effects that could be harmful to crops, there is evidence that increasing CO2 will not help crops as much as expected, and may even harm some crops and sea life, never mind the warming (Cline 2007: 23-26). While earlier enclosed studies showed increased growth with added CO2, recent open field studies show less increase and even a decline of some crops (Long, et al. 2006, Cruz, et al. 2007: 480). Furthermore, crops were found to be less nutritious (Högy, et al. 2009), and had greater pest damage (Hunter 2001). In the real world, crop growth is affected by many factors beyond CO2, including other nutrients, water supply, climate, extreme weather events, soil moisture, toxins expected to increase with global warming, and soil acidification from CO2 (Oh and Richter 2004). So while CO2 may moderately enhance crops up to a point, these other factors are expected to limit the potential enhancement and even lead to eventual declines. When the impact of warming is considered, a nonlinear relationship regarding crop productivity has been found for mid and high latitudes – the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan and Northern China – with increased yields projected up to around 2050, after which the warming causes sharp decrease (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). A more recent study has found that climate change has already reduced some crops globally, despite CO2 fertilization and improved technology (Lobell, et al. 2011). As for sea life, an important human food supply, CO2-caused ocean acidification is having negative impacts on zooplankton (at the base of the food chain), shellfish, fish, and coral reefs, home to one-fourth of sealife (Rogers and Laffoley 2011; Doney, et al. 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg, et al. 2007; Munday, et al. 2010).

REFERENCES

• Cline, W. R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. “Asia.” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-506.
• Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
• Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, and E. G. P. Greenfield, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737-1742.
• Högy, P., H. Wieser, P. Köhler, K. Schwadorf , J. Breuer, J. Franzaring, R. Muntifering and A. Fangmeier. 2009. “Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.” Plant Biology 11: 60-69.
• Hunter, M. D. 2001. “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 153-159.
• Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
• Long, S. P., E. A. Ainsworth, A. D. B. Leakey, J. Nösberger, D. R. Ort. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312(5782): 1918-1921.
• Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, M. I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M. C. O. Ferrari, and D. P. Chivers. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29):12930-12934.
• Oh, N-H., and D. D. Richter, Jr. 2004. “Soil acidification induced by elevated atmospheric CO2” Global Change Biology 10.11: 1936-1946.
• Oschlies, A., K. Schulz, U. Riebesell, and A. Schmittner. 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.
• Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.
• Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598.

 

[HelenRose]

Why would the price of coal and oil sky-rocket? The price usually goes down when demand goes down. And we’d have all that coal and oil to help us keep warm AND warm the planet back up again thru the greenhouse effect, if we should get into an ice age.

I say keep that coal & oil in the ground until we (our future generations) really need it.

Also global warming is as dangerous, perhaps even more so, than global cooling. Some of the greatest extinction events have been due to great warming periods of some 6C warmer than today. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM

I am glad to know that this present warming spell is not unprecedented. I have heard many times that it is unprecedented. But, I have to admit, it was on the weather channel and they use that word a lot. I think there are as many theories about the Triassic extinction as there are scientists who study it. In any case it certainly was not caused by human activity.

 

[lynnvinc]

I am glad to know that this present warming spell is not unprecedented. I have heard many times that it is unprecedented. But, I have to admit, it was on the weather channel and they use that word a lot. I think there are as many theories about the Triassic extinction as there are scientists who study it. In any case it certainly was not caused by human activity.

No climate scientist is saying the past global warming episodes were caused by human activity, and whoever on the weather station said global warming was unprecented is just wrong. Which is why one should not get their climate change science from meteorologists.

Weather is not climate (tho climate is the sum total and average of weather); it’s like the difference between the nightly weather report, which swings wildly from day to day and can be wrong, and an atlas with climate maps and why some people like to move to California bec of the nice climate. We have a garage-sale atlas published around 1970, and their climate maps are still pretty accurate, though for farmers and gardeners the planting zones have shifted somewhat due to global warming.

Now where our present human-caused warming is different from the past is the rapidity at which we are digging up fossil fuels, burning them, and pumping GHGs into the atmosphere – which is lickity-split in a geologist’s or God’s timeframe. And the sun has become brighter, giving off more irradiance warmth, than millions of years ago. So in those regards we are entering new territory and it is more difficult for scientists to say what will happen, except it will probably be worse than in the past.

As for Catholics and people of good will who value life, we should, as JPII & BXVI & the US bishops have told us many times, mitigate climate change, even if we are not convinced of the science, because that is the pro-life and prudent thing to do.

Luckily it is also the economic thing to do, saving us vast sums of $$, without lowering our living standards or productivity.

So, I’d suggest that people here join us who are mitigating GW and laughing all the way to the bank, praising God, Lord of the Universe, chanting, seek ye first His kingdom…

 

[Tampa_Rays]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 1. Maybe
   2. Maybe in the slightest bit but not enough to be significant. I think If we were all to disapear the affect would be very small.
   3. It says nothing unless they are an Al Gore type fanatic, then it says they are crazy.
   4. See above.

 

[HelenRose]

No climate scientist is saying the past global warming episodes were caused by human activity, and whoever on the weather station said global warming was unprecented is just wrong. Which is why one should not get their climate change science from meteorologists.

Weather is not climate (tho climate is the sum total and average of weather); it’s like the difference between the nightly weather report, which swings wildly from day to day and can be wrong, and an atlas with climate maps and why some people like to move to California bec of the nice climate. We have a garage-sale atlas published around 1970, and their climate maps are still pretty accurate, though for farmers and gardeners the planting zones have shifted somewhat due to global warming.

Now where our present human-caused warming is different from the past is the rapidity at which we are digging up fossil fuels, burning them, and pumping GHGs into the atmosphere – which is lickity-split in a geologist’s or God’s timeframe. And the sun has become brighter, giving off more irradiance warmth, than millions of years ago. So in those regards we are entering new territory and it is more difficult for scientists to say what will happen, except it will probably be worse than in the past.

As for Catholics and people of good will who value life, we should, as JPII & BXVI & the US bishops have told us many times, mitigate climate change, even if we are not convinced of the science, because that is the pro-life and prudent thing to do.

Luckily it is also the economic thing to do, saving us vast sums of $$, without lowering our living standards or productivity.

So, I’d suggest that people here join us who are mitigating GW and laughing all the way to the bank, praising God, Lord of the Universe, chanting, seek ye first His kingdom…

It is a dangerous thing to ask a religion to join ranks with a political movement. That has been a terrible thing in the past and it will be a terrible thing in the future. You will not find me jumping on this rather flimsy band wagon. Besides the term is not longer “global warming” it is “climate change” oh no, I am wrong it is now"climate disruption" and when the weather will naturally begin to be cooler that term will be " human caused global cooling".

One of reasons you won’t find many climate change scientists among meteorologists is because meteorologists understand weather while climate change scientists are fixated on their own agenda. Another reason is, if a true scientists is skeptical about human caused global warming - climate change - climate disruption -there is no way in the world he or she will be allowed to join the elite group who call themselves “climate change scientists”.

I have always believed that a true scientist remains skeptical. But now they are insulted and berated for not stepping line with the politcal correctness dictated by a young and rather foolish notion.

 

[RACJ]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming?
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming?
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 
   1 Possibly. 2 No 3 Said person is capable of critical thinking, not susceptible to the notion that a slight rise in a trace gas (.038% in atmosphere, fewer than 4 in 10,000) could be responsible for catastrophic weather systems. 4 Same
   Cordially, Rob

 

[RACJ]

Besides CO2 is a good thing. It is what the GREEN plants thrive on.

HR, the secular evangelists are COUNTING on the fact that many Americans cannot distinguish between carbon DIoxide and carbon MONoxide!

 

[HelenRose]

HR, the secular evangelists are COUNTING on the fact that many Americans cannot distinguish between carbon DIoxide and carbon MONoxide!

I know. My husband is the manager of a rural water company. In last year for his April Fools newsletter he told our customers that the pipes were filled with dihydrogen monoxide. He listed all the dangers in regard to this substance.

There were some who became quite upset about it.

 

[Luvz2travel]

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer? Yes
   ]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming? Somewhat]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming? They have a difference of opinion.
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming? Nothing really only they have a different opinion. This is a scientific question not spiritual one.
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 
   I’m liberal when it comes to the environment but predictions of Global disaster due to Global Warming tend to be vastly far reaching. Only time will tell is Global Warming is real or just a cycle the Earth is going through. Remember the ice age folks…

 

[lynnvinc]

It is a dangerous thing to ask a religion to join ranks with a political movement. That has been a terrible thing in the past and it will be a terrible thing in the future. You will not find me jumping on this rather flimsy band wagon. Besides the term is not longer “global warming” it is “climate change” oh no, I am wrong it is now"climate disruption" and when the weather will naturally begin to be cooler that term will be " human caused global cooling".

Our Holy Fathers have been on the environmental bandwagon since the 1972 and on the global warming (AKA the greenhouse effect & climate change) bandwagon since 1990 – well before the naysayers made it into a political issue. I was also into it in the late 80s well before there was any political “peep.”

Global warming (AKA the greenhouse effect & climate change) is first and foremost a life and morality issue, secondly a scientific issue, and it is only lastly a political issue, but only for those who do not value life on planet earth.

Come on now, why would people be against turning off lights not in use, buying energy efficient appliances, or going on alt energy even when it is cheaper than dirty energy, and the 100s of other things we can do that save $$ while saving the earth?

 

[HelenRose]

Our Holy Fathers have been on the environmental bandwagon since the 1972 and on the global warming (AKA the greenhouse effect & climate change) bandwagon since 1990 – well before the naysayers made it into a political issue. I was also into it in the late 80s well before there was any political “peep.”

Global warming (AKA the greenhouse effect & climate change) is first and foremost a life and morality issue, secondly a scientific issue, and it is only lastly a political issue, but only for those who do not value life on planet earth.

Come on now, why would people be against turning off lights not in use, buying energy efficient appliances, or going on alt energy even when it is cheaper than dirty energy, and the 100s of other things we can do that save $$ while saving the earth?

That has nothing what so ever to do with this drive to convince people that they are the cause of “global warming” That is simply a means by which the moral puritans of our progressive friends can call us to mind our sins.

Just because I do not accept the theory of global warming and what I see as a power grab by our progressive friends, does not mean that I am against conserving energy. That is a far cry from wasting billions of tax payer money on schemes that do not do any good and serve to make people like Al Gore very very rich.

The amount of energy to pour one of those huge cement blocks on which a windmill will stand, is more than the windmill itself will produce in several lifetimes. Talk about the destruction of land. Miles of huge cement blocks will dot the landscape. If the human race manages to survive for another 2,000 years or so, they are going to wonder what on Earth those blocks are. They will believe they were constructed for some kind of weird god.

100,000 to 500,000 years from now as the earth erodes around them they will be silent sentinels of our stupidity.

 

[lynnvinc]

That has nothing what so ever to do with this drive to convince people that they are the cause of “global warming” That is simply a means by which the moral puritans of our progressive friends can call us to mind our sins.

Just because I do not accept the theory of global warming and what I see as a power grab by our progressive friends, does not mean that I am against conserving energy. That is a far cry from wasting billions of tax payer money on schemes that do not do any good and serve to make people like Al Gore very very rich.

The amount of energy to pour one of those huge cement blocks on which a windmill will stand, is more than the windmill itself will produce in several lifetimes. Talk about the destruction of land. Miles of huge cement blocks will dot the landscape. If the human race manages to survive for another 2,000 years or so, they are going to wonder what on Earth those blocks are. They will believe they were constructed for some kind of weird god.

100,000 to 500,000 years from now as the earth erodes around them they will be silent sentinels of our stupidity.

How about hypermiling – lightfoot on the accelerator and breaks? That can save $$ and one’s breaks and tires. Turning off engines in drive-thrus. Finding a home (meeting one’s specs) closer to work/schools on one’s next move. Carpooling. Maybe a bit of cycling and walking to offset some driving – good for the health and spirits (but stay away from dangerous traffic).

I always try to find a parking space in the back of the parking lot; the one-way parking aisles run parallel to my workplace building, so parking in the furthest aisles reduces my driving by some 200 yards. I know that’s not much considering that we drive a Volt on wind-generated electricity – which is soon to change to solar (so we won’t be causing more of those cement blocks to be built – I hear you).

One of the really great things about mitigating climate change is that doing so also helps to mitigate numerous other environmental and non-environmental problems that cause harm and death.

We started out 44 years ago making sure we always lived close as possible to work, within the specs of the home and decent neighborhood we sought – but we did that so as to reduce using up finite resources. It has also paid off in:

1. 
   *]less car purchases (and the enormous amounts of raw materials for cars, shipping of these, pollution from extraction, etc)
   *]less car repairs
   *]less wear & tear on roads
   *]less driving time and stress
   *]more family time
   *]less local pollution that harms and kills (including causing birth defects and miscarriages)
   *]less acid rain, reducing soil/lake/ocean acidification, emphysema and lung disease, damage to propery, less other health problems caused by nitrogen oxides and nitric acid.
   *]less drilling for oil, oil spills, cancer alleys in oil processing areas, etc
   *]less indoor car pollution and its health harms
   
   But I don’t count that “living closer to work” as part of our GHG reducing by 60%+ below our 1990 levels, since we’ve been doing that all along anyway for the main purpose of saving resources for future generations.
   
   It was the global warming issue back in 1990 that got me really started on reducing our GHG emissions (and also concomitant other pollution and harms). Global warming is sort of an umbrella issue that involves many solutions (the Little Way of Environmental Healing) that also help solve many other problems, plus to my utter surprise has saved us a lot of money while actually increasing our living standard – and vastly reduced marital strife over money issues.
   
   So if perchance global warming turns out to be a hoax or farce (and the laws of physics would have to be violated for that to be the case), we are still sitting pretty by mitigating it.
   
   RE the “power grab” thing – by living off the grid and off the land gives one more freedom, not less. Now at this point we aren’t going that far, but who knows, we are getting much closer to that gold standard of mitigating climate change.
   
   And BTW, I don’t think either political party is into mitigating global warming – altho as VP Gore did help start making government much more energy efficient, saving tax-payers $Billions (I just happened by fluke to catch that story buried deep in the Chi Trib one day). No, Clinton received as much campaign money from big oil as Bush Sr, and Obama is a coal-man – you cannot be IL senator without the support of S. IL coal. Both parties are using GW as a political ploy and are totally insincere. Well educated Republicans KNOW GW is real, and Dems KNOW they are not going to do squat about GW.
   
   As the Bible says, be as wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. Or as I tell my husband (who didn’t have the benefit of growing up in America) when he thinks he’s really won $50,000 fake-claimed in some junk mail: “A sucker is born every day.”

 

[HelenRose]

How about hypermiling – lightfoot on the accelerator and breaks? That can save $$ and one’s breaks and tires. Turning off engines in drive-thrus. Finding a home (meeting one’s specs) closer to work/schools on one’s next move. Carpooling. Maybe a bit of cycling and walking to offset some driving – good for the health and spirits (but stay away from dangerous traffic).

I always try to find a parking space in the back of the parking lot; the one-way parking aisles run parallel to my workplace building, so parking in the furthest aisles reduces my driving by some 200 yards. I know that’s not much considering that we drive a Volt on wind-generated electricity – which is soon to change to solar (so we won’t be causing more of those cement blocks to be built – I hear you).

One of the really great things about mitigating climate change is that doing so also helps to mitigate numerous other environmental and non-environmental problems that cause harm and death.

We started out 44 years ago making sure we always lived close as possible to work, within the specs of the home and decent neighborhood we sought – but we did that so as to reduce using up finite resources. It has also paid off in:

1. 
   *]less car purchases (and the enormous amounts of raw materials for cars, shipping of these, pollution from extraction, etc)
   *]less car repairs
   *]less wear & tear on roads
   *]less driving time and stress
   *]more family time
   *]less local pollution that harms and kills (including causing birth defects and miscarriages)
   *]less acid rain, reducing soil/lake/ocean acidification, emphysema and lung disease, damage to propery, less other health problems caused by nitrogen oxides and nitric acid.
   *]less drilling for oil, oil spills, cancer alleys in oil processing areas, etc
   *]less indoor car pollution and its health harms
   
   But I don’t count that “living closer to work” as part of our GHG reducing by 60%+ below our 1990 levels, since we’ve been doing that all along anyway for the main purpose of saving resources for future generations.
   
   It was the global warming issue back in 1990 that got me really started on reducing our GHG emissions (and also concomitant other pollution and harms). Global warming is sort of an umbrella issue that involves many solutions (the Little Way of Environmental Healing) that also help solve many other problems, plus to my utter surprise has saved us a lot of money while actually increasing our living standard – and vastly reduced marital strife over money issues.
   
   So if perchance global warming turns out to be a hoax or farce (and the laws of physics would have to be violated for that to be the case), we are still sitting pretty by mitigating it.
   
   RE the “power grab” thing – by living off the grid and off the land gives one more freedom, not less. Now at this point we aren’t going that far, but who knows, we are getting much closer to that gold standard of mitigating climate change.
   
   And BTW, I don’t think either political party is into mitigating global warming – altho as VP Gore did help start making government much more energy efficient, saving tax-payers $Billions (I just happened by fluke to catch that story buried deep in the Chi Trib one day). No, Clinton received as much campaign money from big oil as Bush Sr, and Obama is a coal-man – you cannot be IL senator without the support of S. IL coal. Both parties are using GW as a political ploy and are totally insincere. Well educated Republicans KNOW GW is real, and Dems KNOW they are not going to do squat about GW.
   

     As the Bible says, be as wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove.  Or as I tell my husband (who didn't have the benefit of growing up in America) when he thinks he's really won $50,000 fake-claimed in some junk mail:  "A sucker is born every day."

1. 
   

   I have no problem with conservation.  It is a good thing to not waste the world's resources.  We should all be more careful.  I agree with that 100%.   But I am going to tell you right now, I have no desire to live under a rock and eat worms. We live on a farm and we run a water company.  I don't think we want to go back to hoes and rakes to cultivate the land.  Nor do we want to use picks and axes to build ditches like my husband's grandfather did.  We live close to the land and I know what it would mean to not have needed energy.
   
   Even if it  may have accomplished something you don't care about, the energy that you speak about actually accomplished something.

   To use this blessed short period of warmth as an excuse to waste billions and billions of dollars and enormous amounts of energy to built huge windmills, huge batteries, huge blocks of cement and call it saving the Earth while creating maybe 10% of our needed energy, is far more wasteful than what you have mentioned. Think of the billions of tax payer money that is given in grants to companies like Solyndra which go bankrupt then sell out. The amount of energy and tax payer’s money expended on these projects will never be recovered.
   
   The government should leave this risk of failure to private enterprise. By the way, I am not a Republican and I am fairly well educated.

 

[PaulGH]

My answers in blue:

I suppose this is really a four-part question.

1. 
   *]Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer? **Probably. Most data indicates that it is, but questions have been raised – such as the claim that many temperature monitoring stations are located near heat sources (even if only mild heat sources, such as asphalt that absorbs heat from the sun).
   **
   *]If so, do you believe that humans are responsible for global warming? Maybe. I don’t think that humans are solely responsible, but maybe partially responsible.
   *]What does it say about a person if he/she does or does not believe in global warming? Nothing conclusive. It could mean that they have a healthy skepticism. It could mean that they are better informed than most (if they are right), or that they are worse informed than most (if they are wrong). It could signal that the person has the courage to stand against the tide of popular opinion, or it could mean that they believe in wacky conspiracy theories. There is no one-size-fits-all description of the numerous people who are skeptical about global warming.
   *]What does it say about a romantic partner if he/she does or does not believe in global warming? Same answer as the previous question.
   
   Thank you in advance.

1. 
   Also, I’ll answer another question that you didn’t ask:
   
   If Earth really is getting warmer (whether because of human activity, or for other reasons), is this something to worry about? **Probably not. Considering that the climate has gotten warmer and colder throughout history and pre-history, and considering that there have been times when Earth was considerably warmer than it is now, who is to say that the climate as it existed in 1900 or 1950 or 2000 or (insert year) is the one true, correct, ideal climate? **

 

[Marie5890]

I do believe in climate change. I work on a farm and have seen things shift, noticabley so in the past 5 or so years. In a drastic way

 

[HelenRose]

I do believe in climate change. I work on a farm and have seen things shift, noticabley so in the past 5 or so years. In a drastic way

The question isn’t whether or not the climate changes. Climate has always swung back and forth between ice-ages and warm periods. We have been warming since the last serious ice-age. But I have a great deal of problem with the concept that mankind has an effect on the overall climate.

A single large astroid hitting the Earth would would have more of an effect on the climate than the puny efforts of human beings.

 

[lynnvinc]

I do believe in climate change. I work on a farm and have seen things shift, noticabley so in the past 5 or so years. In a drastic way

What have you noticed?

I’ve been looking into GW and food/agriculture. There are several ways in which GW is having an impact on crops (and plants in general). Here is the new “plant hardiness zone map” - accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/usda-plant-hardiness-zone-map/60768

That sounds good, but there are several negative issues. Some plants, like apple trees, require a good cold spell during winter in order to produce apples. Also plants are tricked into blooming earlier than usual, then a freeze comes and kills the flowers or fruits. See pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec12/cherries_08-16.html

Then there are the increased and more severe droughts and floods, even floods during droughts, since warmer air hold up more water vapor, dessicating plants and soil, then releasing it in severe weather events as precip (rain, or if its winter & up north, then blizzards). And GW is bringing more insects damage and weeds that are C3 plants – they do better with the CO2 fertilization than the C4 crops they strangle out.

And my problem… When we moved down to S. Texas near the Rio Grande I thought, great, we can have a good home veggie garden nearly all year round, but found the summers are too hot, so we have fall, winter (when plants do a bit poorly bec of less sun and the cold), and spring. Also the normal pattern here is having a killing freeze about every 10 years – sometimes one bad enough to kill certain avacado trees, mango trees, etc. But I thought with global warming, maybe these would become more rare – one of the few benefits of GW.

Now since we’ve been here (11 years) there have been 4 years with killing freezes, one which brought snow, which had not happened in over 100 years. And one was so bad several years ago it did a surprise early Dec freeze, then a couple of Jan freezes – like a one-two knock out, and did over $billion damage to N. Mexico’s winter crops. And come to find out, science is emerging that indicates strongly negative arctic oscillations (that bring those killing freeze from north to south – instead of the more usual weather pattern of west to east) may be becoming more frequent and stronger with global warming.

It’s sort of like we’re on this dangerous roller coaster that’s making people lose their hot dogs and money, and even killing some people, but when we are at the loading station at the base, we refuse to get off, bec we might have to change our habits, like take reusable bags when shopping, and besides no one wants to admit they are causing the problem bec of goody-two-shoeism.

It was different when big industries were causing “point source” pollution. There was a hue & cry from the public, esp moms across the nation, against that and we made them clean it up in the 60s & 70s, and now that type of pollution is much reduced. But if it is I, me, moi, myself causing “non-point source” pollution that is harming people (including my children), then I’m not guilty, I’m good, I love my children, I’m a church-going upright citizen, so don’t put any blame or responsibility on me…Besides climate scientists are a bunch of evil jerks who can’t be trusted, and have no clue at all that there are many factors that impact climate, etc, etc.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Do you believe that the world is becoming warmer?

Probably. Most data indicates that it is, but questions have been raised – such as the claim that many temperature monitoring stations are located near heat sources (even if only mild heat sources, such as asphalt that absorbs heat from the sun).…

There’s an interesting post about this very issue over at Real Climate (hosted by top climate scientists) – realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/urban-heat-islands-and-u-s-temperature-trends/

I guess the point is, the scientists have been aware of the urban heat island effect and have been adjusting for it all along (which means they actually lower the temp data to more accurately reflect the real temp without the UHI effect).

 

[lynnvinc]

…The amount of energy to pour one of those huge cement blocks on which a windmill will stand, is more than the windmill itself will produce in several lifetimes. Talk about the destruction of land. Miles of huge cement blocks will dot the landscape…

I was sort of curious about where you got that information about wind-generators, bec I just been reading about how Koch-funded wealthy thinktanks are mounting a huge media campaign against wind power (the Koch bros being oil billionnaires).
See guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/15/media-campaign-windfarms-conservatives

Also, it seems Spain did not follow their advice not to have wind power, bec it is now their greatest source of electrical energy (at 25%) and they plan to get 40% of their energy from alt sources by 2020 – see guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/windfarms-break-energy-record-spain

Another thing I had sort of forgotten about – I attended a conference in 2005 and a study presented was about how there are other methods to make cement so it will not be so polluting and energy-intensive (with a big GHG footprint) – I think by using ?? rice hulls.

So there are always solutions to problems, if we put our mind and heart to it.