cannonballZ said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
1) The Earth is in a Warming Period (not sure why this is really never talked about) both on a local, smaller scale and the larger glaciation Cycle.(11,700 years ago was the Holocene/Pleistocene Boundary, or the end of the last major glaciation period and there was a cooling period after the Medieval Warming Period till arguably the 1850s)
2) Why is there very limited talk on the Oceans? I would say the Ocean is just as important to our Climate as the Atmosphere.
3) Climate traditionally to mean 20 years (or maybe it was 30 years?) of Weather. Not sure if this has changed, but "mostly" the media treats climate as a tool that changes daily. I think they are using the wrong definition. I really hate the Term "Climate Change" just as I hated "Global Warming". A great deal of people think that Climate Change = Warming. When in reality, Climate is made up of all piece of weather (heating, cooling, pressure, wind, storm events, etc). Is the Climate Changing? Seems to be, but not in the way it is made to sound.
4) If the Climate is changing (and I think it is) it has done this before MANY MANY MANY times prior to Man being on the Earth. Why do Scientists of all people seem to ignore this Science for another? Seems very narrow minded to me and lacks Completeness when talking about an important Subject. Scientists, Politicians, the Media all leave Geology and in particular Earth History, as an after thought.
I have two questions for this argument:
Since when? Has the change started?
and
How much? Is Man Contributing ?
I did enjoy the article (in the irony that it was). The Author misinterpreted the research. Insulation (from the sun) does not mean Insulation (from the earth) is not happening. I would like to know which has the higher Heat total? The external heat that we are insulated from, or the internal heat that we are trapping? Now that is research I would love to see.
|
for what i bolded in #3- Exactly. A great deal of people seem to tihnk exactly that.
I also thought the author misenterpreted the article, I could'nt find anything in the NASA link that would lead me to the same conclusion.
And for the last two questions I bolded- those are questions I have been looking for answers to also, my thoughts are the same.
|
Science follows money. This is the ugly truth that many gloss over. It is extremely difficult to get funding for unpopular and/or "non economic" science (I know, I tried). There is basically nothing worse in Science than "Cherry Picking your data" and I feel funding is doing almost the same thing.
Im actually very surprised Energy Companies are not going gangbusters over trying to fund "Counter Global Climate Change" research. Well, not really that surprised, they are more inclined to spend their money to make money/diversify their energy than try to save their images through Science...that is what Marketecture/PR is for.
As for those 2 questions, there is an answer I am just unsure that Funding will be given to find it.
