Wasn't referring to you at all but it seems you think the world revolves around you for some reason! I was talking about GW in general, it's always CO2 this and CO2 that. And look at the site link here , they are reporting on that !
Since your post immediately followed my post I don't think it's a huge jump besides I said "if" Another point of view : http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html
Rebuttal to all that nonsense . http://forums.mydigitallife.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=9749&d=1308110782
"Rebuttal to all that nonsense ." what nonsense are you referring to specifically ? and the graphs are to make what point as far as a rebuttal? and directed at who ? please be clear?
The role of CO2. Some of my thoughts about. The awareness of the people that their behavior to (dealing with) nature could be irresponsible has started a process. It already had started before. (for instance Ozone hole.) Never before humankind came up with the idea that emission (of particular gases) might have a global influence. It is a process of becoming aware, an evolutionary step. It is a step at which humankind has to recognize that nature is not separated to 'them'. How exactly this process becomes manifest and with how many different 'instances' does actually not matter. People consider that exploitation of nature actually will harm themselves also. The demonizing of one substance has a function as conversational gambit. The actual sense is not to figure if CO2 is really responsible for global warming or not. If it wouldn’t be CO2 then it is another substance. The sense is even that people get such an awareness, an awareness of responsibility. We can watch how different interests (egos) are dealing with this process of awareness and its object CO2. It all depends on the interests which are ALWAYS ego related. Some will go into the wrong direction. They abuse the term CO2 to strengthen ego interests, others will follow the natural goal, reintegration of nature. In other words: The role of CO2 is to make us to have a closer look at the world and what we are doing with the nature. To have a closer look at the processes and to think about how they are related to each other and what consequences it might have. The role of CO2 is to make us to create threads to discuss like this thread. Beyond all that there is a force which will become manifest as events repeating as long as necessary. It is a simple principle of inflation / deflation, which is found everywhere as universal physical principle (also to expand / to contract). This means the ego will play its separation game by identifying with more and more objects (inflation) until it either deflates or collapses because of suffer. It is the step of overcoming of ego and ‘re-integration’ of nature. To live ‘separated’ from nature and to treat her like an exploitable object is a condition that will enforce its ‘change’. This change can mean that some of those involved will ‘vanish’.
The whole problem with this is that you are trying to make it sound like we are at times separate from nature, we are a part of nature irrelevant of what we do. We are not aliens here, or are we . http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...-10-myths-about-global-warming-and-co2-damage
We live in a time where information/messaging is largely driven by corporations with the resources like messaging/public relations infrastructure that present their products in a way where it would appear we can't live without them and our very way of life is conjured from their messaging machinery .. The further we get from our natural connection to the natural world the easier it is for these corporate interests to have their way with us and to manifest an illusion that we may no longer have the inclination to question the underlying motivation of corporate profits .. We do not have to go back very far in history to see the unmistakeable results of this thinking and the mark it has left on us and the environment we share as a whole .. The rewriting of history is common practice now, where if you get enough people to believe it "it must be true" or at least sufficient collective doubt to obscure the truth .. The temptation to surrender the last internal vestiges of the awareness that everything is connected will be lost if we succumb .. The importance of these times is not lost on even the marginally aware is my position .. The corporate induced complacency will be your legacy and demise if you relegate your thoughts to be molded by that illusion .. Like Yen said "To live ‘separated’ from nature and to treat her like an exploitable object is a condition that will enforce its ‘change’. This change can mean that some of those involved will ‘vanish’." @R29k of course I read it and that is why I provided the link for your consideration .. The retired Nasa Scientists'"The Right Stuff" report is being disputed by other Nasa scientists is the point .. I am of the mindset that this banter serves no useful purpose and provides only distraction and a eventual environment of separation which I have no interest in promoting ..
I simply think the whole issue of Global Warming is too complex to just simply say let's pin it on CO2. There are so many factors that dictate climate.
I am not speaking of an intellectual conclusion. I am speaking of a change in consciousness / awareness. Has one understood that we are a part of nature or is the one really aware of her? A simple example that reflects the entire mechanism of responsibility. When one walks through a forest and the one has just finished a plastic bottle of water there is always the decision to throw it away or to keep it until recycling. Is it intellectual understanding that we are a part of nature that keeps the one away throwing it away? Or is it a changed consciousness (present awareness of the affinity to nature)? I mean at the moment when one decides to throw it away there must be lack of awareness at this moment and not lack of intellectual understanding which has been gained already before. Actually we are not a part of the nature. There is no difference to us and the nature.
Many people are completely oblivious to everything around them other than their own well worn path. An affinity to nature is acquired through upbringing and exposure, it is not something inherent in most people. Most people these days are of an urban upbringing and lack the exposure. At the end of the day we are animals and very much "nature" as you put it. I think our actions can change nature for the worse, but only on a short term basis, our existence is very short in the greater scale of things.
NOT man-made IMO. I agree with R29's, Bobsheep's, and many others posts. They have more than sufficient documentation available already posted. But to add that humanity must take notice and collectively reduce areas of massive waste and pollution. As the world population increases at an alarming pace, many countries large scale destructive practices for nothing more than monetary gain and power will be our demise..
ehh.. nothing last forever we are here because of the sun heat up the earth ..but the sun will do its thing ..like burn all its fuel and then explode..but the way its becoming big and more big and then adios.. the major problem the human kind will face like problem with the monetary system which will stop people to escape or we cannot make the technologies more faster to evolve..or another one religion..this two major things I believe will end our kind .. someone please say that am wrong!
It's getting worse .. Wasting precious time debating is a fools errand at this juncture .. "unprecedented water crisis within the next few years." Source : http://www.weather.com/news/science...lake-powell-lake-mead-climate-change-20130818 Check satellite image progression from Source [h=3]March 25, 1999[/h]
the ozone layer is being ruined by the mankind activity here on Earth. Thus, this shield is becoming more and more weak = more disasters occurs all over the world and the climate is getting more unstable than ever. The mankind exhausts earth resources - that's why lot's of environmental catastrophies happen.
[h=2]From Mapping vulnerability and conservation adaptation strategies under climate change[/h] James E. M. Watson, Takuya Iwamura & Nathalie Butt Nature Climate Change(2013)doi:10.1038/nclimate2007 Received 20 December 2012 Accepted 12 August 2013 Published online 15 September 2013
thanks R29K for setting the topic in my view it is man-made, I cannot believe that the CO2 concentrations have shot up to their current state within mere 100 years just a kind of natural "deux-ex-machina" way the temperatures are rising but that is unfortunately not the end of it as it sets off a whole chains of after-effects which are even more dangerous - the current unpredictable extreme weather events >> extreme draughts & extreme floods I do believe that natural temperature changes can be even more drastic than those current ones caused by humans but I do NOT believe that such changes are just matter of tens of years if they are natural (of course - unless we talk about catastrophic phenomena such as volcanoes / big meteorites)
It's man made. We may not yet know all the details, but it is going to be severe. Everyone that tells you something else may be paid so say so. See: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. A very good read, well referenced.
Thanks for the reminder of Maunder Minimum. What triggered the last ice age? Could the next ice age be triggered by Volcanic Winter by one of the 4 super super volcanoes explosion (Yellowstone National Park, Toba, Indonesia -very active now, Santorini, Iceland?)?