I agree with Jeffrey S. We must always strive to take care of our planet to the best of our ability and doing nothing is a fool's way of ruining our planet for those who come after us!
Photograph by Yereth Rosen, Reuters
Published July 30, 2014
Sixteen-foot waves are buffeting an area of the Arctic Ocean that until recently was permanently covered in sea ice—another sign of a warming climate, scientists say.
Because wave action breaks up sea ice, allowing more sunlight to warm the ocean, it can trigger a cycle that leads to even less ice, more wind, and higher waves. (See "Shrinking Arctic Ice Prompts Drastic Change in National Geographic Atlas.")
Scientists had never measured waves in the Beaufort Sea, an area north of Alaska, until recently. Permanent sea ice cover prevented their formation. But much of the region is now ice-free by September, and researchers were able to anchor a sensor to measure wave heights in the central Beaufort Sea in 2012.
"It is possible that the increased wave activity will be the feedback mechanism which drives the Arctic system toward an ice-free summer," write Jim Thomson of the University of Washington in Seattle and Erick Rogers with the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Mississippi in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
If winds can blow for a longer distance over the open ocean, they can produce higher and higher waves. Sea ice limits how far winds can blow, thus limiting the formation of waves.
"Future scenarios for reduced seasonal sea ice cover in the Arctic suggest that larger waves are to be expected," the study authors write. (See "As Sea Ice Shrinks, Can Polar Bears Survive on Land?")
Big waves could be the new normal in the Arctic, says Darek Bogucki, a physical oceanographer who works in the Arctic but wasn't involved in the study.
That means changes for shorelines, which could start getting hit with larger and larger waves that speed erosion, he says. It could also change the amount of carbon dioxide being exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, potentially triggering the Arctic to release more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
The amount of open water varies annually in the Beaufort, with virtually no open water in April when sea ice is at its maximum, to over 621 miles (1,000 kilometers) during sea ice minimums in September. Although the Arctic has been steadily losing its sea ice cover since the late 1970s, that loss accelerated in 2002. The 16-foot (five-meter) waves the scientists' instrument picked up occurred during a storm with strong winds on September 18, 2012.
Follow Jane J. Lee on Twitter.
It would be a terrible, shameful thing if we were to see (and be at least indirectly responsible for) the last polar bears in our lifetime.
Extreme thinking; Take the 2 basic extreme lines of thought, Either Global warming will be the end of the world as we know it, or Global warming is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, (obviously the Truth lies somewhere between);
Is it not better to assume there is a problem and try to do something about it and be proven wrong, than do nothing and be proven right?
Oh my. It is hard to fight stupid. Makes me think of Brer Rabbit challenging the little baby made of tar. Kellogg's comments are beyond obtuse and ,sadly, so ordinary among the uneducated and unaware.
@Jeffrey S. why is U.S.responsible for feeding the world if our farms are in such rough shape. why does goverment pay farmers not to farm , to grow crops for fuels. The dust bowl was manmade. there are intelligent folk that feel the facts dont add up the way your intelligent folks do. Want to do something about global warming what ever they want to call it now. The name changed as the weather changed. can't call it gobal warming during coldest winter in history. I challenge you go seven days and not use anything that creates green house gasses. Oh yeah your intelligent folks also want to crub the population because humans produce green house gasses. you for the goverment telling you how many childern you can or cant have. There is not a single product that is not touched by oil in some form or another. so lets all drink the cool aid Reverend Jones whoops I mean reverend jeffery
Past climate change 10s of hundreds of thousands of years of processes.
Present climate change less than 200 or the dawn of the industrial revolution.
It is the rate of change. It is not that it is changing.
So the question of, "Global warming" essentially comes down to the following;
One camp touts the thinking that we are in a natural cycle of warming. That man and the man-made green house gases have very little or nothing to do with the current climate.Some state that we are actually in a cooling cycle. Some believe that we should be concentrating on, "adaptation", essentially stating we have to accept the fact that a natural climate change is inevitable, that is what we are experiencing and there is nothing that man can do about it, so we have to learn to live with it.
Then there is the other camp, which states that although climate change is cyclical, this time around it is being heavily influence by primarily man-made greenhouse gases. There are certainly other factors involved, like deforestation, but the primary cause is the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. So that being the case, it is generally believed that man can do something about it, namely drastically reduce the CO2 emissions. Also, there is technology, somewhat in infant stage, that would help clean some of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
When speaking of past climate changes, both warming and cooling, it essentially breaks down like this;
Cooling periods generally caused by the suns rays being blocked from warming the earth due to an asteroid(s) hit, or volcanic activity.
Warming periods, as the smoke cleared, so to speak, from the above events, allowing the sun to shine through, the earth began to warm. The Pliocene period represents most closely the warming we are experiencing today. Interestingly, CO2 was the primary cause at that time, though through a natural order. The CO2 and greenhouse gases peaked and the warming trend was over. This time around there is no peak in sight unless we start to drastically reduce the man-made output, as it sits now, it is ever increasing.
It's a matter of which camp is providing the most conclusive and scientifically sound evidence. For me, the debate winners are clearly the ones sighting global warming, who make the case that manmade greenhouse gases are the primary culprit in what we are experiencing today and if we get on the stick there is a good chance that we can mitigate the situation before it gets entirely out of hand.
That's really the point, is it out of hand and nobody can answer that one except through time. My thought is let's try do something about it as opposed to a "Wait and see" position.
Since the Arctic ocean is stratified with fresher colder water on the surface from the input from rivers and from melting ice, internal waves will form between this layer and the deeper salty, warmer water. When these internal waves reach shallow water they will break, mixing the layers. This may contribute to the saltier, deeper, warmer water being brought to the surface to further melt the ice: another possible feedback.
About several years ago, I was at work listening afternoon turn talk show, the guest on the program came rom a well known family of explores who for decades made trips to the Antarctic.
The guest told the story of his uncles plane, it was all metal and bright red in color, he took off from the base camp with scientists on board and they landed safely at this one location and I think the guest said his uncle made the mistake of shutting down the engine.
Try as they might they could not get the engine restarted and they had to be rescued, they plane was abandoned.
Well sixty plus years go by and a group of scientists are at the very same location and they are there to take "Ice Core", Samples.
They start drilling and everything is fine; till all of sudden the bit hits something hard, these guys estimated they were at a depth of over 50,000 years of snow and Ice.
when they decided to pull the drill, and see what was going on.
When they checked the core sample they almost fainted, for they found red painted aluminum. The guest on the show happened to be in the area heard the story and said
wait a minute where is the location and when he was informed of the location, he said relax its not an alien space craft, it has to be my uncles plane that he had to abandon in that location over sixty years go.
The big question became is how that plane got under so much snow and ice and how accurate are these Ice Core Samples and how accurate is carbon Dating?
I agree its all about cycles, however, there are experts out there who say they have measured the sea ice on both poles and they say there is actually more ice not less.
It's all about cycles people. A mere 10,000 years ago the polar cap was as far south as New York City. It is proven that the earth has been heating and cooling cyclically, caused by forces way beyond human control.
Any other argument is just political noise, not science.
As I see the debate about climate change and climate scientists is really an issue of over analysis. Thousands of people are looking at things that have always existed, but scrutinizing them more than they have ever been scrutinized before. This is similar to the invention of the microscope leading to the discovery of bacteria, except that those scientists were smart enough to realize that they were not looking at a new phenomenon. It is not possible to look at climate changes over the last several million or even thousand years with the same level of scrutiny with which current climate scientists are able to study climate processes. Unfortunately these scientist grossly overestimate their understanding of climate processes. Many of them have made outlandish predictions based on carbon dioxide concentrations, but when few of their predictions come true, they don't go back and change their hypothesis with regards to the importance of carbon dioxide. Instead, they attribute current observations (floods, droughts, desertification, earthquakes, storms, etc.) to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations as if all of these phenomena are new, and without explaining the mechanism by which all of these diverse catastrophes are caused by a simple compound that has existed in varying concentrations for longer than life on earth has existed.
@Jeanell Wendeborn I Truly hope that the talk of, "Global warming", "Climate change" whatever one wants to call it, turns out to be chasing phantoms. I hope the views I have turn out to be completely wrong. I hope that our children and theirs have nothing to be concerned about in this regard.I'll be the first one to say that I was Chicken Little and said the sky is falling.I would so much rather that than to say, "I told you so." This issue is so complicated, and there is such a vast amount of conflicting data and opinions that it is impossible to KNOW.I do not think anyone can claim to KNOW, time will tell. The problem is that if we wait to KNOW and there is a serious problem, it will then most assuredly be too late to do anything about it.I believe we KNOW ENOUGH that it would be prudent to try and reduce our CO2 output for the sake of future generations.
Be Well, Ms. Wendeborn.
Polar bears survived at least five, and maybe more, extremes of full glaciation and warmer interglacials than this one. Also, humans (including indigenous) are forbidden to kill them now. Result: infestation.
The issue is to tax or not to tax.
Carbon tax solves no problems, it just makes a chosen few rich.
@Penn Stallard Good day Mr. Stallard. Mr. Kellogg apparently doesn't realize that through his ignorance of fact and abusive ways, he only serves to reinforce the argument of those of us who believe that Global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed, (I realize that is a cheap shot @ getting CONVERTS, to put it in terms of Mr. Kellogg). I actually encourage him to ramble on.
The US is not responsible for feeding the world. It's a business... which is why they organize to get paid for lower yields to artificially raise prices. No one ever changed the terms global warming and climate change. They are related but different phenomena and have been in the same relative usage since they were first introduced. Industrialization of countries generally lowers birthrates without coercion. In some countries the birthrate is below replacement rates and the population is aging. The US is still giving tax breaks for dependents. Yes, fossil fuels are ubiquitous but burning it is causing a big problem so we should move away from dirty 19th century energy technology to modern renewables.
@John Kellogg @Jeffrey S. Really John? How ignorant can you be? The planet WAS hotter then average, by quite a bit last year and for the last few decades. North America was colder then usual last year, but the rest of the world was much hotter then average. Remember the Australian wildfires?
There may be intelligent folks that disagree that climate change is happening, but they are ignorant on this subject. Plain and simple. Unless you are selectively seeking out bad information, a moment of research on google will elaborate you as to the facts.
Even the petroleum companies now acknowledge that climate change is happening. They just argue that is not man-made. Their next argument will be others are responsible, and so we shouldn't do anything about it (oh wait, they already make that argument). After that, they will argue that the costs are too great, which is entirely foolish. Nothing is more costly then the destruction of the human race. Their final argument will be that we can't do anything about it.
Ten years from now, your grandchildren will hate you for your anti-science, anti-human, anti-God beliefs. We were made to be stewards of the Earth, to protect it and better it for the next generation. A person such as yourself is an affront to my children, and my grandchildren.
Judging from the strident ignorance of your arguments, you are beyond redemption. You are literally ignorant beyond redemption judging from your words.
Based on your logic and your value to humanity, I hope you choose to buy a home in the Maldives, and ride it out to the better end.
@John Kellogg @Jeffrey S. By the way, it's not all Petroleum products that are the problem, it's primarily the burning of fossil fuels, not peaching, just pointing out, excuse me, how ridiculous your comments are.
@Anthony Romano So you are saying the in the entire "10s of hundreds of thousands of years" that we have never had a climate change the same as we've had in the past 200 years? In the past 1,000,000 years or 50,000 - 200 year cycles, we've never changed this much before? We've been actually recording for 1 - 200 year cycle and are guessing on the other 49,999. Yeah, seems accurate to me as well.
@Jeffrey S. "Cooling periods?" Do you mean when a titanic sheet of ice TWO MILES THICK descends over the entire North down to Chicago? Stays there for 100,000 years. Then melts for 10-25K years. Repeat 17 times over the last 2.5 million years?
How sure are you this is due to 'caused by the suns rays being blocked from warming the earth due to an asteroid(s) hit, or volcanic activity' followed by the smoke clearing? Really?
@Jeffrey S. I agree with what you have said and although there is a strong argument for the greenhouse gasses camp. Consideration must be taken into account that billions of dollars are being spent on research and experimentation on greenhouse gasses and there effects.
What I'm trying to get at is scientists for the greenhouse gasses camp get grants and money to pursue research, where those in the natural cycle camp get none or a lot less this could potentially have caused bias and a stronger argument for greenhouse gasses.
@Mark Tercsak That's a really nice story. You wouldn't happen to have a REFERENCE to it would you? Or is just just a piece of fiction, which I would of course assume at this point, being a reasonable person.
@Mark Tercsak Again, please give us a reference, or the name of the "experts" you cite. Experts in what? Icemeasuringography? C'mon dude, you can't just repeat "stories you've heard" and "experts who say" and expect to be taken seriously.
@John Dooley Yes, the planet naturally warms and cools. And yes, we can still make it warmer then otherwise. More then one thing can affect the outcome of a situation, get it?
A persons weight can fluctuate over the course of their life. If they suddenly eat 8 pizzas a day, nonstop, they will gain MORE weight, despite what else they do.
Or think of this. The stock market goes up and down. Generally, it goes up, because our economies become more efficient, and our work force more productive. Humanity changes the graph.
Natural climate change happens because of volcanoes, asteroids, and gradual changes. We are adding something NEW and DIFFERENT.
Try this analogy. Your grades in school might go up and down. If you stop going to school suddenly they will plummet. If you hire a tutor, they will go up.
You CAN change processes and outcomes through your actions, get it?
@John Dooley and your argument is that since nobody has controlled the climate, nobody will be able to and we should not try. do not try to fly an airplane, or go to the moon or ..... -- just stick your head in the sand and maybe it'll shut your mouth from spewing the latest points from fox news
@John Dooley Your argument is not logical. Just because the earth has been heating and cooling without human influence does not mean that human influence is not affecting this cycle, which is also occurring in decades, not millennia.
@Gayle Jackson Climate change science is not a question of how YOU see it. It is, or it isn't. Climate change doesn't care about your opinion. If it is happening, it is not a question of debate.
A fool or a wise man can argue endlessly while always being wrong. I could poke wholes in scientific arguments, and claim gravity does not exist, yet I will still not fly.
Being able to make an argument that might appeal to some does not make you correct. Your basic premise, which you elaborate on below, is to discredit the entire scientific method by question it's very accuracy.
What do you offer in return? Your opinion?
I will choose to believe in the scientific method. You know, the thing that brought us electricity, computers, cars, fire...
"Over analysis???" Really? I think I smell a Koch media bot (and a few more below). Do you guys get paid by the post, or by the hour?
Science is about the best fit theory that matches observations. Nobody is claiming that climate changes are a new phenomenon, so this is a straw man argument. What they're claiming is that natural forcings alone don't account for the degree of warming we've seen. Through observation and experiment, we're well aware of the impact of CO2 in a greenhouse effect context.
All modeling is wrong. The point is that models are not meant to be 100% perfect, because that's impossible. They are instructive. So complaining that the model is being modified for new input is absurd. The fact is, however, that the degree of sea level rise and ice melt that's being observed is greater than what the IPCC had predicted.
@Gayle Jackson Have you herd of Physics? Do you understand that 99.999 percent of Math is an exact science with the ultra rare exception such as the square root of 1. If you do not know the answer, (+1 or-1), then how can you make a comment either way on the science of, "Global warming"? Nobody is saying that greenhouse gases are no good, it's the overabundance we are creating primarily through the use of fossil fuels.
The function of CO2 and the ozone layer, (which has observable holes in it), with respect to the Earth's ability to regulate its temperature are known and understood by those who are far more educated on the matter than you or me.
If you do some research, there are plenty of scientific explanations with the research to back it up, that explains the cause of, "climate change" both past and present. So, for you to say that there is no explanation available dealing with the mechanism which has caused these changes in the past and now the present tells me you haven't done nearly enough research on your own.
@John Donohue @Stefan Stackhouse 5 and maybe more? How long have polar bears inhabited the world? When was the last, "full glaciation"? How sure are you of this? Really?
Here is an example of where a carbon tax could make a significant difference and do some good.Cement manufacturing produces quite a bit of CO2. There is technology that would reduce it significantly. The cement manufacturing companies are not using this technology because it would require some $ invested on their behalf. We are not talking putting them out of business, just a temporary loss of some of their profits while they implement the changes. They will not do so because there is no incentive to them to make the change as it sits now. If a carbon tax was implemented, they all would change, because in the long run it would save them money over paying the tax.
It's kinda like the Auto industry, technology that allows higher MPG was pretty much ignored until CAFE and gas guzzler tax was implemented.An example for which I think most would agree did some good.
Tax alone isn't the answer, but it very well may be part of it.
@Peter B. Simmons @Jeffrey S. So what your saying is that the whole issue of Global warming comes down to $? If that is your view, how about the fat cats who sit atop the Oil and Power and Auto companies, talk about a chosen few. They want to keep our dependency on fossil fuels for no other reason than the almighty $.
With all the scientific study now available, from BOTH sides, I think that there is enough evidence to show there is an issue other than just the financial considerations.
We are at the point where the debate isn't, "if" there is a climate issue, but rather, how bad is it, can we do something about it, should we try to do something about it and if so, what.
@Mark Davies @John Kellogg @Jeffrey S. Hey there Mr. Davies. I agree with your comments. Certainly fellows like Mr. Kellogg and Shaun F. have nothing pertinent to add to the conversation, they just try to rile the people whom are obviously more educated on the subject than they are.
That being said, I do believe that there those who are intelligent,thoughtful and informed that have different points of view and sincere beliefs on the matter, (I suspect you feel somewhat the same). The issue is very complicated and frankly no one KNOWS either way. I certainly do not. I do believe, however, that at this stage the preponderance of evidence indicates that we are facing a real problem, enough so that we should at least be making a concerted effort to curb our greenhouse gas output. As you say, if not for us, for our heirs.
@Mark Davies @John Kellogg @Jeffrey S. Ok Mark, you come on here and insult other people then point to God? Nice!!! the fact that you're bringing God into this shows your ignorance. Why don't you take your moment on google and find just a small piece of evidence that "God" exists. It's not there. I'm sure your'e another one of those religious idiots who push their idiotic views on everyone else. Get lost buddy
Not necessarily hotter. There will be some debate soon on the satellite temperature readings. Their have not only been errors due to different generation of satellites and manufactures, but programming algorithms. Apparently the heart of the matter is the measurement and compensation of heat from the earth versus the reflective heat from cloud cover.
Not long ago ice cover was the go to topic. Now that the ice cover at both poles is increasing the new catch word is temperature. The satellite contractors have customers and the customers are always right, so estimates can vary.
@John Jacob @Anthony Romano I can guarantee you John that we have never had HUMANS doing all the stuff we do, which obviously will change our environment, until now. Thanks so much for your childish arguments, I'm sure the thousands of researchers and scientists never explored this angle.
Be sure and submit your ideas to your local university; I'm certain you will be eligible for the Noble Prize for solving the climate change problem that would otherwise threaten to destroy humanity.
Next up, tell us how we can breath water, since you read water has oxygen in it.
@John Donohue @Jeffrey S. I'm not sure, but there is plenty of research, scientific evidence and scientists that state this.
I admittedly simplified my comments and certainly there were other factor's involved, but that is the gest of it, Really.
And might I ask, when was the last time in history that Chicago was covered by 2 miles of thick ice? How sure are you of this?
@Brett Matthews @Jeffrey S. Hi Brett, I do agree with you, like mostly all issues, particularly those with government ties, they are usually corrupted by $. The flip side to your observation is that it is the Oil and Power and Auto companies who stand to lose their ludicrous profits should we ever get around to trying to deal with the issue in earnest. I tend to believe that $ is playing a part on both sides of the table and in my opinion kinda cancels out the consideration of such, when one tries to analyze what is going on.
No question that the waters are muddied because of the almighty $.
@Jeff Magnus @Gayle Jackson The IPCC is largely a political entity, many scientists that contributed to the IPCC reports have distanced themselves from that particular body because it is more about politics than science. You are mistaken about the point of models. If they do not approximate reality they are useless.
@Jeffrey S. I have heard of physics, but I've never tried to herd physicists. You assume that I haven't done any research.
Historic carbon dioxide levels recorded from measuring ancient glacial ice cores, are shown to be a lagging indicator of warming, so how can carbon dioxide be responsible for warming when it goes up after the temperature goes up? How exactly does an increase in carbon dioxide cause an increase in precipitation in one location and a decrease of precipitation in another location? I've never seen a satisfactory answer. Of course the blanket explanation is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the warming is what causes it, but what so called climate scientists choose to ignore, is that CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a much stronger green house gas, but CO2 is produced by industry which is much more profitable to tax than are plants or bodies of water.
As far as the holes in the ozone, these have nothing to do with CO2, and have largely repaired themselves as the use of CFCs have been greatly reduced.
@Jeffrey S. Up until a year ago, science thought the polar bear evolved about 120,000 years ago. However, they have refined their knowledge and now say 800,000 years.
In that time, the glaciation has cycled at least 6 times, which means solid ice down to the continent.
The last full glaciation started about 130,000 years ago and lasted 120,000 years or so, until it retreated 12,000 years ago.
@Peter B. Simmons @Mark Davies @John Kellogg @Jeffrey S. You bring up at least 1 interesting point, referring to the matter what's going on with the ice at the poles. Looks like I've been a little behind the times on that one.Time for me to do some homework.
I do believe there is still significant melting of snow/ice caps on certain mountains around the world, as well as some rapidly shrinking Glaciers. Some of which is a concern because they provide water to many, through their melting cycle. Problem is the snow and ice isn't being replenished through their natural cycle as they once were.
@Mark Davies Here's the scary part for you, I do teach at a local university, and I do teach the students not to believe everything they read, even things that are socially popular and make them feel better. I teach the students where to find facts and how to analyse them to make informed decisions.
You didn't answer my question, was the last 200 years the extreme that this has happened, and did you actually analyse the other 49,999 periods?
Fact, from the National Weather Service, http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive, July 2014 was the 16th coldest month of July recorded since 1874. 5 years ago we had the 8th coldest July since 1874. Now, 2011 and 2012 rank as the 5th warmest and warmest July's on record, since 1874.
Bottom line, weather is random and it changes. I'm sure there are literally thousands of different ways to analyse the data. As I teach my students, don't go in with a predetermined opinion, because you can always find supporting data to make you feel better.
Noble Prize, no sorry I have to much common sense.
Breath water ah? Please tell us how we evolved from fish. LOL.
There are only one group of people who start arguments by calling the opposing party a name "...childish arguments..." Normally I don't even entertain them, but I had 15 minutes and figured you needed to hear a little truth.
@Jeffrey S. Whoops. If you do not know about the last glaciation, which ended about 12,000 years ago, and the thickness of the ice (1000 feet in NYC, 4000 Feet in connecticuit and 9,000 feet in many places) then you should not speak in certainties about climate.
Ok, I exaggerated. Chicago was at the southern edge of the ice sheet, so not as deep, perhaps only 3000 feet deep. Deeper in the interior, some places up to 2 miles thick. 12,000 years ago.
Montreal, 2 miles thick.
I never stated that CO2 and the holes in the Ozone are one in the same, only that they both contribute to, "global warming".
By the way, did you mean to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the warming is what causes it, or was that a grammatical error, if not you have it backwards.
@John Jacob @Mark Davies Following are links to several sights that support the premise that overall the earth's temperature is on the rise, cause and effect.
As you say one can always find data to support their point of view. It's a matter of trying to determine which point of view is more plausible.
@John Donohue I'm aware that several Glaciation periods occurred throughout the Earth's history. Do I know the exact chronology off the top of my head, no.
Did I include orbital shifts, tectonic shifts and ocean current variation when discussing climate changes of the past, no.
That being said, the point being made is that climate change in the past came through a natural order. There is strong evidence that what we are experiencing in present time is being heavily influenced by the introduction of man-made CO2, deforestation and alike. THAT'S the point! Not how thick the ice was in Chicago 12,000 years ago. Which, by the way is open for debate.
I realize it is a moot point, but seeing as how you feel that speaking in generalities disqualifies one from making such observations, let's both get all the FACTS straight. As you said yourself, "OK I exaggerated".
If we cannot speak to this unless we are certain, then NOBODY has anything to say on the subject, including yourself.
Also, pointing to one study is not the be all end all. There is so much data available, with conflicting opinions, so there is no certainty here, it's a matter of the preponderance of evidence.
What is certain is that the CO2 in the atmosphere plays a major role in regulation of the Earth's temperature. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, gas, & oil) has increased by around 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.That's certain.
The thickness of ice during the last glaciation and the timing of such does not change that.
Basically climate change hysteria is driven by politics and not sound science.
@Gayle Jackson @Jeffrey S. Sorry Gayle, but the hysteria is being driven by the fossil fuel companies who can read the writing on the wall, and know that they only have a few more years before they can no longer compete with alternative energies. It's just good old capitalism at work, and the fossil fuel companies want to limit their competition.
@Jeffrey S. @Gayle Jackson Wow Jeffrey.....someone comes on here with a valid point and sound evidence and you continually try to point to one sentence. You, my friend, are a complete idiot. Quit trying to push your ignorant views on the rest of us. You act like you're the smartest person in the world.
@Shaun F @Jeffrey S. @Gayle Jackson Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. All I hear from you is rhetoric. I am not the smartest person in the world. Apparently smarter than you. Questioning someone's point of view is one thing. Personal affront quite another.
Notice I used no commas. You mentioned below I use too many commas. I've accommodated you. Apparently you have A.D.D. and cannot follow a thought that is more than a few words.
My reaction to you is, "OMG", (sorry for the commas). I'm sorry moot point.You've stated above that you are G-dless.
@Mark Tercsak @Jeffrey S. @Gayle Jackson I responded as I did because there is intelligent conversation going on and to discredit other's opinions through pointing out spelling errors or typo's, (I'm not the only one she has , "schooled") while she makes grammatical errors that completely change the meaning of what she is trying to say, annoys me. I am not, "angry" at anyone, I'm passionate about my beliefs towards global warming and what the future holds for our heirs, my opinions being right or wrong. Time will tell.
@Jeffrey S. It's out of bounds to make a pun about a word error, but not at all condescending and disruptive to "intelligent conversation" to insinuate that somebody has no clue what physics is? Thanks for the tutorial on proper internet argument protocol.
@Jeffrey S. I understand. I think you should check hat site out.
From sugarcane farmers in Mozambique to fishermen in the Philippines, here's a collection of some of the best images from our Future of Food series.
Since 1915, National Geographic cartographers have charted earth, seas, and skies in maps capable of evoking dreams.
A grueling trek through a jungle, followed by a treacherous climb: How one team took on one of mountaineering's biggest tests.
The Future of Food
How do we feed nine billion people by 2050, and how do we do so sustainably?
We've made our magazine's best stories about the future of food available in a free iPad app.