We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Global warming a hoax no longer

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 12:44 PM GMT on May 05, 2006

Are the climate models that form the foundation of greenhouse warming predictions fundamentally flawed? That has been the argument of some scientists and "greenhouse skeptics" over the past few decades. The main issue has been the inability of the climate models to reproduce the relatively low amount of warming observed by satellites and weather balloon instruments in the troposphere (the lower portion of the atmosphere that extends up to elevations of about 40,000 feet.) This discrepancy was a prime argument Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) used in his famed 2003 speech when he referred to the threat of catastrophic global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, who has probably more Congressional testimony about global warming under his belt than any other scientist, headlines his website with the quote, "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty." Michael Crichton also used the tropospheric warming discrepancy to give climate models a bad rap in his State of Fear novel. (Incredibily, Crichton--a science fiction writer--was summoned by Sen. Inhofe in September of 2005 to testify before Congress on the issue of climate change.) However, the arguments of these global warming skeptics were dealt a major blow with the issuance this week of a press release by NOAA's Climate Change Science Program refuting their main argument.

The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived,

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.

So can we trust the climate models now? That will remain a matter of debate, but now we know that these models have successfully performed at least one major prediction that their detractors thought was wrong. With the climate models validated by the collapse of the greenhouse skeptics' main argument against them, it is apparent that their predictions of possible catastrophic climate change are no hoax and need to be taken seriously.

For further reading: The Economist printed a easy to understand article in August 2005 summarizing the new research exposing the satellite and weather balloon measurement errors, and realclimate.org has a more technical discussion.

I'll be back next week to talk about the demise of La Nina, and other factors that may affect the coming hurricane season.

Jeff Masters

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 217 - 167

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

217. HurricaneMyles
11:12 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Ahhh....I'm confused. There was no bickering, fighting, or anyting like that. We're simply discussing the current SST compared to last year and MichealSTL asked about ENSO conditions last year. I dont think anyone is expecting anything to develop right now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
10:59 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
guys please give it a rest i can assure you there is to much sheer for anything to devlop now so all of you get a good night sleep...do what tonys doing relaxing...however start to really look at the tropics by may 21-24..you all have a great night im going to eat at acmes...StormTop
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
215. HurricaneMyles
10:39 PM GMT on May 06, 2006

Last year may have been technically ENSO Neutral, but that doesn't mean that El Nini/La Nina like conditions cannont develope and persist for less time then required to be declared an offical El Nino/La Nina. These pattern changes could effect us even if they are only short term.

Also, the La Nina of September was the start of the official La Nina we had over the winter. Doesn't it have to persist for 6 months to be declared official?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
214. ForecasterColby
10:35 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
That wasn't ENSO, last year was ENSO Neutral. Even the 'La Nina' of September on wasn't officially so, it was strong or consistant enough to be classed as such.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
213. HurricaneMyles
9:56 PM GMT on May 06, 2006

I took a good look at anomlies from last year, and it was actually quite interesting.

During Jan 05 the enite equatorial Pacific was warmer then ussual. However, the warmth was spotty with only very warm SST in regionalized locations. It looked nothing like the straight line of high SST almost right above the equator that El Nino ussually displays.

From Feb-early April, La Nina conditions acutally developed and started looking pretty defined. During late April though SSTs warmed up and from April 26th-May 10th a pool of warm water developed that look quite like El Nino, much more so then in Jan.

However, as quickly as it went from what looked like La Nina in early April to El Nino in late April, it went back to cold anomalies in late May. These, too, didn't last and again El Nino like conditions developed from late June-late July when cold water again broke up the developing warm pool.

During August there was a mix of regoinal warm pools and cold pools scattered about the equatorial pacific with a persitant warm pool near lower Central America/Northan S. America.

Then from September on we had our weak La Nina.

In all, it was a back and forth effort between warm anomalies and cold anomalies from Jan until Sept. Neither strong El Nino or La Nina condtions developed, but it does appear that weak El Nino and La Nina alernated from Jan until August.

What does all this mean? I don't know. I'm not too familiar with ENSO beyond it's effects. I dont even know excactly why El Nino/La Nina causes More/Less shear besides it displaces the Jet Stream. How/Why it does that, I have no clue. I would guess that since niether El Nino or La Nina persisted for more then a month that it didn't have too much of an effect, but I could be wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
211. HurricaneMyles
9:21 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
That was my mistake, I misread.

BTW, the TWC program is kinda interesting. It's on the new GEOSS program and how is should help our understanding of weather.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
210. lightning10
9:17 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
From my understanding he is talking about this.

The darker blues are below average and there are a few blacks on there that look like islands. These are temps taht are less then or equal to 5 degrees celsius below average.

Yellow is average where it has been for most of the time durning the past 100 years or so.

Deaper reads are temps that are on average equal to or greater then 5 degrees celsius.

Again I might be wrong.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
208. StormJunkie
9:02 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
There is a special on TWC about climate change for anyone who is intrested.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
207. pt100
8:35 PM GMT on May 06, 2006

Im afraid that the real power in this world, the oil/energy companies, are powerfull enough to stall this new product untill the last drop of oil is sold.

For u who dont know what we are talking about:
new solarpanels
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
206. HurricaneMyles
8:40 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Black-Blue is acutally below average MichealSLT. Average is very light blue or very light yellow. That would mean SST is less than -.5 or +.5C.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
205. Trouper415
8:35 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Does anyone know what the cost of a Hybrid engine is to buy? And does anyone have any websites conerning Hybrid Engines in general so I could do some studying. Thanks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
204. HurricaneMyles
8:26 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
The links I posted, and images lightning posted, are SST anomlies - the difference between average SST and actual SST. The difference is that those two maps dont show actual SST, as the one you posted did.

I really dont know how you're seeing that the Caribbean and East Coast are warmer then last year. The East Coast appears roughly the same while the E. Caribbean is below average when last year it was above. The rest of the Caribbean and Atlantic are warmer then normal, but about 1-1.5C. Last year most of the Atlantic and Caribbean was 1.5-3C warmer.

Also, I have no idea how SST early in the year effect SST later in the year. I haven't the education or the expierince to draw on and say what may happen. I'm not going to college for metoerology and I have only been watching the weather for about two years. However, I would guess that it is safe to assume that above average SST now should correlate with above average SST later, but I can't say for sure.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
202. StormJunkie
8:33 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Micheal can you explain what the scale is on the maps that were posted by lightning? Is it deviation from average?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
200. StormJunkie
7:45 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Myles, I am not sure I understand the scales you have on those maps, and what do you make of those maps compared to the ones I posted. The detail level is definetly higher on the links I posted. I do agree most of the Atlantic is cooler, but the Carib and the east coast seem to be a good bit warmer. If I am correct then this would be because of the current loop and the fact that it is pulling the much warmer water out of the gulf and in turn heating the entire gulf stream area. That being said could we not expect the central atlantic water to continue to warm as long as the Gulf stays so much above average? I would think that would also prevent the W Alantic from cooling as much as normal. Ya'll let me know where I am off.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
199. Fshhead
7:28 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
pt100 that was a really good link. I am glad to see that progress is being made on the solar energy. Me personally, I think this is the way to go!!!!
I wrote in here the other day about an HBO special "to hot NOT to handle". They said in this show that if we lined up 100 miles of solar panels on each side of the Mojave desert this would be enough to power our whole country. Not sure if this is true or not BUT, now after reading about this breakthrough in Africa....... Maybe not so far-fetched!!!!!!
Like I said before you guys should try to catch the HBO special really really good.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
197. lightning10
7:48 PM GMT on May 06, 2006

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
196. Trouper415
7:45 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
I was refirring that the La Nina which may effect the Atlantic Ocean more so than the gulf which would aid the formation of the Cape Verde storms. And the above normal temps coupled with a little help from the La Nina would aid the hurricanes forming in the gulf and the caribean area. I'm just saying it looks like those 2 adding up could mean for a nice season.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
195. Flakeman
3:38 PM EDT on May 06, 2006
Quick post on a continuing hot subject. It won't change unless the cost of renewables and the cost of oil about the same. It will only be at that point that it will become beneficial for people, as individual comsumers, to start switching. If you feel that this time is near, buy stock in renewable related industries, and laugh when Exxon takes a dive.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
194. HurricaneMyles
7:40 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Hmmm...don't know why those didn't work. But the links do work, so you can still check out the differences between the SST on 05/06/06 and 05/07/05.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
193. lightning10
7:39 PM GMT on May 06, 2006

I would love to make my own prediction and be on your list. ^_^
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
192. HurricaneMyles
7:33 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
The Central Atlantic is much cooler then last year at the same time. The Caribbean is also quite a bit cooler aswell. The North Atlantic is warmer, but that doesnt matter much at 40N. The Gulf is really the only thing that is warmer then last year.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
191. weatherboyfsu
7:30 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Last year we had everyone make a prediction and i still have the list.....This year we are going to do it again but you have to have your prediction in before June 1st.....We have plenty of time and I hope everyone stays safe and has no damage from the Hurricane Season of 2006.....I made one chase to Hurricane Wilma with Hurricanechaser and it was an unique experience to say the least.......Im not a techinal person and have been busy with work, but finally have a chance to get my footage edited and maybe have a chance showcase it. I will be back soon...........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
190. StormJunkie
7:21 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Trouper, how can you say Atlantic temps are not warmer then they were last year? Look at the Gulf stream and Carib in these images.

Especially the upper stream.

5-6-05 SSTs

5-6-06 SSTs

It looks to me like the Central Atlantic is about the same temp, maybe slightly cooler, but the E coast and the Carib are warmer.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
189. ForecasterColby
7:17 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
The GOM SSTs are shocking right now - area of +3C anomalies in the NWGOM.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
188. Trouper415
6:57 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Zaphod and others,

People must realize that we are, or should be in a massive transitional period. Energy from resources is what keep us alive. First it was wood in the form of fires. Then oil from whales etc. Then coal, Then Petrol; not knowing the good or bad effects of each. And each new energy source was better than the last, more efficient and much more abbundant. However now we have begin to run out of oil and it is time to make the transition to the next energy source. We as Americans and anyone else who has the leadership abilites should be thinking ahead and making the transition. For we have waited far to long. However the leadership of this country has been very poor the past 6-10 years concerning this. As a leader you must be concered both of whats partaking now with your people, but also thinking ahead and making preparations ensuring the wellbeing of future generations so your people prosper. This however has not happened and why? Because the world leaders in this country and not leaders by any means. And I could consider myself conservative on many views. He has lead many people indirectly to thinking that oil is still the future, and we as Americans and the world will thrive off this. Not really thinking about the future at all but just for himself. There has been a severe lacking of American leadership the past 6-8 years. And we as America being a vast influential leader ourselves for the time we have been around, looks very lackadazickle and unready for what is ahead.

I gauruntee that if a leader was in place right now who had the ability to convice the worlds people, we would be well on our way to making that transition. Generations to come would be secure as they always have, and people would have confidence in their beliefs. It will all take place soon.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
187. Trouper415
6:42 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
well put LakeWorthFinn.

It seems as if overall SSTs in the Atlantic arent as high as they were one year ago with the amazing season we had in 2005. However the Gulf SSTs are really starting to crank up and look higher than they were last year. So, coupled with the fact that La Nina mainly effects cape verde storms out in the Atlantic, and very high SSTs in the gulf, couldnt we expect a good hurricane season? I know we dont know much about El Ninos or La Ninas very well, but I was wondering.


When I said getting the climate 'back to what it used to be' might have been a bit confusing. I just meant getting it back to its natural variations of what it has been doing the past 500 million years and beyond greatly being effected by the Milankovitch Cycle. I was referring to it 'used to being' before humans had an impact with the emission of greenhouse gasses etc. And we can do that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
186. Zaphod
1:34 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
I think it doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not, from a practical standpoint. Two very significant factors will remain true either way:

- the days of cheap oil are drawing to a close
- the american lifestyle, wealth, and power is linked to cheap energy and cheap mobility

America and many other nations have already largely decoupled their non-mobile economies from oil (some with nukes, others with coal, some otherwise). No other nation is as fixated with cars as the US, so our mobile economy is uniquely oil-heavy, but few have wealth, square miles, and cheap energy. When will we change? When we have to -- due to fuel costs and shortages. But I doubt we'll change all that much. A lot of people drive $45K SUVs today -- they could drive a plug-in hybrid averaging 100mpg for less and keep the lifestyle largely unchanged.

Once cheap oil runs out we'll shift our economy more to coal, LNG, and tar sands, then probably to nuclear before we get to totally renewable energy. But since that'll take 100 years we personally won't care, and our kids will probably have worse issues with water, food, and disease to deal with as the population grows anyway.

In the meantime, build an energy efficient house, buy efficient cars, and invest your savings in oil exploration, battery manufacturers, and Canadian tar sands. You'll smile while others cry. Don't blame publically traded oil companies for their profits either -- they're your best (only?) friends on the global stage, as they're driven by money, unlike their nationalized rivals run by China and such.

Of course, the poorer you are, the worse you'll fare, but that's just the way the world works. For everybody else chaos and strife will be matched by opportunity. Tack along with the winds of change and enjoy the journey.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
185. HurricaneMyles
6:14 PM GMT on May 06, 2006

Looking through the SST Anomoly history, I don't see anything that looks like an El Nino. The SST near the Equatorial Pacific had some above normal temps around May-June, but nothing that extended from S. America across the Pacfic. They were broken up by many areas of below normal temps which consolidated into a week La Nina by September. This weak La Nina is what I believe helped caused the large number of late season storms that we had.

This season has >1% chance of seeing as many storms as last season. The weak La Nina we had throughout late Autum and through Winter has pretty much dissapeared. So despite StormTops doomsday predictions, it's looking like we will have neutral ENSO conditions and an active season, but not like 2005. We'll know for sure later in the year.

SST Anomoly Link

BTW, Trouper415, please tell me how the Earth 'should be' because as far as I can tell, this history of the Earth is climate change. It stays here and there for a little while, but it never stops changing. That's not to say we aren't having an effect on the climate, but to say that without our interference the climate would stay as it 'should be' is a very flawed idea in my opinion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
184. ForecasterColby
6:16 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Lucky, cyclonebuster is the supreme spammer of the internet. I've never seen a board he HASN'T plastered with these asinine tunnels.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
183. LakeWorthFinn
12:34 PM EDT on May 06, 2006
I remember in the 50's people thought hypnosis was a hoax. Now doctors use it to cure patients.

Questioning global warming will make our chidren and grand children pay a high price for our denial.

It did take centuries to admit earth is round.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
182. lightning10
4:42 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
O thats right. I often forget that La Nina affects the area around Cape Verde. Most of the hurricanes where from the gulf of Mexico or from caribbean.

This year could we get more storms from Cape Verde? If so wouldnt that mean that the east coast would have a higher risk this year
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
180. jose123
3:50 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
I noticed most of the people the good DR. refers to are these uneducated Senators and other rednecks. You are doing your country no favors by refering to these political low lifes. they will say what ever the establishment want them too, as so they can feed their fat faces at the trough, keep the american people iggnorant. (which isn't hard). Remember WMD.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
179. StormJunkie
3:20 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Another question I have is how certain are we in our predictions of a La Nina, and how certain are we that a La Nina will reduce shear in the Atlantic?

"Most of the statistical and coupled model forecasts indicate ENSO-neutral conditions in the tropical Pacific through the end of 2006 (Fig. 6). The spread of the most recent statistical and coupled model forecasts (weak La Nia to weak El Nio) indicates uncertainty in the outlooks for the last half of the year. However, current conditions (stronger-than-average easterly winds over the central equatorial Pacific and below-average upper-ocean heat content) support those forecasts indicating that La Nina conditions will continue for the next 1-3 months."
From Climate Prediction Center
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
178. StormJunkie
3:13 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
lightning, I have not had time to look through and research to much information because I have been busy working on the web site, but I think, if memory serves me corrctly, there did seem to be fewer storms that formed out in the Atlantic. There were quite a few carib storms and gulf storms, or storms that strengthed in the carribean and gulf then in the E Atlantic. There were not many Cape Verde storms last year. Anyone else who can chime in on this?

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
176. lightning10
3:03 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
Good morning to everyone.

I as well have a question on the hurricane issue. Last year I thought we had a weak El Nino in the Eastern Pacific. I thought that would make last seasons wind wind shear in the Alantic slightly above average keeped Hurricanes down (despite the warmer then average water temps in the Alantic)

However we all know what happend last season. This season however we are in a weak La Nina for the season (its expected to last for another 3-6 months) know with the weak La Nina shouldnt there be below average wind shear in the Alantic? If that was the case wouldnt the season be worse then last year? yet many are saying it will be not as bad as last year despite the La Nina.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
174. jeffB
1:14 PM GMT on May 06, 2006
The links to the South Africa solar breakthrough site are interesting.

My first reaction was "venture-capital scam". No links to the professor's Web site, no links to the university, no mention of scholarly publications on the topic -- just lots of popular press about how it was many times more efficient than existing panels (unlikely because of basic physics), how it was a simple "metal film" (how's it going to be efficient if it reflects or transmits most of the light that hits it?), and it was going to "change the world", starting any day now. Bogus, bogus, bogus.

HOWEVER, I believe I may have been wrong. If you scroll way down on this page, past the "over-unity" garbage and so on, there's a lengthy article that does point to Vivian Anderson's publications -- there are a bunch, they are in real journals, and they are directly relevant to the technology that the popular-press articles mention. It's conceivable that Anderson has simply decided to focus on commercialization rather than academic publication. (It's a shame, though; results much less significant than this make it into Science and Nature all the time.)

It certainly looks like it could be legit, at least on closer examination. I really hope so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
173. Trouper415
7:40 AM GMT on May 06, 2006
For you, 'is' is taking into consideration the implications of what human induced Global Warming means for our generation and the ones following. People naturally dont look at the big picture and plan for the future because we have never had to. And never have there been 5 billion humans on the planet as well. Our compatability with the Earth has changed durastically and so must the way we respect it now as well. Prosperity will come soon.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
172. rwwhot
2:25 AM CDT on May 06, 2006
Acknowledging what "is", is more important than what I might need, or want. So obviously, if you wish an answer directly, need is more important than want, however, "is" is more important than either.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
171. Trouper415
7:14 AM GMT on May 06, 2006

What is more important. What you want or what you need?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
170. rwwhot
1:58 AM CDT on May 06, 2006
I ask if A or B.
I get the answer "yes". boggle.

To ask, perhaps more clearly, does the sealevel plateau before, or after the temp gets back to 22C?

Trouper415, between what China is going to soon do with coal, and what we are going to soon do with coal, I think yall need to get passed this "we can stop it" thing. Recognizing reality is the first step in making rational plans, and the reality is that we are about to blow the doors off of any sort of CO2 containment.

Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
169. Trouper415
6:48 AM GMT on May 06, 2006

There is a reason that 1/2 of the worlds people live near the coast. Food, a nice place to live and great weather. Most people live in Los Angeles, New York or San Francisco why? Beucase they are at the coast. Why dont poeple live in Montana? Becuase the climate isnt very good. Furthermore, if we can reduce emissions and get the world back to its normal self, than why should we have to live in Antarctica? In 10,000 years when the climate is back to how it should be, then we could live in Antarctica when the avg temp is 60 degrees, but until then lets get out of the problem we've created and worry about our generation and the generations that follow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
168. Trouper415
6:40 AM GMT on May 06, 2006
An essay I wrote if anyone wants to read it.

Climate Change


We have over the course of time, steered ourselves into the headlights of a blosomming situation. Created by man, woman, and child alone, it is time to become active. No longer can we sit and watch others work, educate and learn as we have done throughout our history. We must take this matter into our own hands, ensuring health, prosperity and wellbeing for our children, and their children henceforth.

No time in our history have we faced a situation with the prospective magnitude such as this one. From California, to Zimbabwe. Argentina to Finland and Nome Alaska to South Africa, the people and this place will be affected throughout.

Community is a huge player in this complicated game of chess. People must gather together and make the dedication to difference together. People too often beleive that the government itself is the answer to soley combating this issue. However the U.S. Government being one of the world leaders for the past two centuries, has shown little to no signs of dealing with this problem. Furthermore, the very foundation of the US government doesn't show much movement when these are the start of the important years.

We must first realize the situation; its implications, how we can solve it and the benefits when we have conquered it. Since the end of the last ice age, the human race has flourished wonderfully. Things have changed for the better. We are much more healthy, educated and prosperous than we were back then. The impact we have on the place we live has also changed five fold. Our actions no longer affect just us as a community here in Marin, but have world implications which can be said for any community in the world.

Lets take a similar situation for example which was solved just in the last 20 years. The hole in the Ozone in the stratosphere of our atmosphere. It started out as a shunned away belief that one person first realized as far back as 30-40 years ago. We thought there wasnt a way for us to have an impact as large as destroying our atmosphere which keeps us safe. Something we take for granted every day. As time went on, and more research was conducted, this one person who used persistance was able to identiy that the problem was in fact caused by us. The scientist found that our emission (recognize that word?) of Chlorolfloral Carbons was literally tearing a hole through the Ozone layer whch protects us from the Sun's harmful rays. However at the time when the hole was found, we thought the hole was much much smaller than it actually was and thought that the hole itself would not have impacts that could effect us. With more persistance and a much bigger following than first started, they luckily found the hole to be MUCH bigger than we had originally thought. Instead of being just 100 miles in diamieter, it covered a large portion of the north pole. And with enough activism, we were able to cut our emissions enough and the Ozone repeared itself. Proving that our emissions can have an effect on us.

We only have one place to live, and thats here on Earth. With the vast amount of us here, we must treat our communities and tend to them as if they were our own. Keeping them clean and safe for our children.

Solving this problem may seem very difficult, but in actually it is very easy, and completing the means to solve it actually secure our economy for many years to come. The switch to alternative types of energy and becomming aware, are the first steps. For the years of cheap oil are waning and the time is at hand to build the infrastructer and machinery that will carry our economy into the future. One can only imagine the oil prices in 10-15 years.
Taking baby steps is a big step. Educating people something as basic as recyling makes a real difference. Or try buying just one solar panel; It will make you feel better about making a difference in your conserved greenhouse emissions, but also your community donation. The bills are high these days, and they arent comming down anytime soon. Helping prepare your house for the future with a small adjustment brings lower energy bills for years to come. Join your community; Attending a park cleanup, community garbage cleanup, or community counsil meeting make big differences. The Education of others concerning this dilema spreads a web effect throughout your community, followed by its crossing great lands, Making a HUGE difference. And thats just where it starts.

The benefits of solving the Global Warming situation are colosal. Right now with the current forcasts of how this world will look in 100 years, all of us will be greatly effected. It doesnt have to be that way! With enough activism, community, persistance, motivation and confidence, we can ensure the health and wellbeing of our children for many generations to come, garaunteeing them just as prosperous a land as we have experienced.

Its hard to make preparations for something that will 'affect' us as far down the road as 1-2 or 3 generations. However we have been lucky enough to be blessed to recognize and even more importantly have the means to solving this problem, that we surely cannot wait any longer to start solving it! The time is now to gather the population and partake on the journey begun.
For a community rich with activism and will, limitless are the possibilites of prosperity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
167. Trouper415
6:38 AM GMT on May 06, 2006
For all those who say that Global Warming will bring out better change such as Antarctica and Greenland becomming liveable landmasses....Who wants to live somewhere where its 24 hours of sunlight one time of the year, and 24 hours of darkness the other? Doesnt sound like much fun.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 217 - 167

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

Category 6™


Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

Ad Blocker Enabled