Originally Posted by Bubba
I am a huge weather fanatic and as such I realize that short of Katrina most of the severely intense weather has happened in the past during times that we had no greenhouse emissions. So basing any findings on current weather patterns is downright ridiculous since we only have about 100 years of actual recorded weather. How do we know what happened 1000 years ago or how bad the storms were? Do you realize that 100 years in the scope of climate change is like hardly a drop in the bucket. It is insane to suggest just because we have some bad storm or more snow or less rain or more rain it is caused by something that has not even been on the earth for that long.
It's a big earth with a big ecosystem that has time and time proven it can survive just about anything. So when climate can be affected by the flap of a butterfly's wings and in a time when our weather forecasts are only extremely accurate out to about 2 hours or so I hardly doubt we can pinpoint the exact cause of our problem...if there is one. I believe we are seeing a normal climate shift that is far beyond our control. You really want to believe the crazy reports when we cannot even tell if it's really going to rain tomorrow or not?
For forecasting the weather forecasters are given 4 or 5 models from the computer systems and it is the forecaster's job to determine which one he thinks is going to happen. He relays this to several other forecasters on staff at the National Weather Service and they discuss all of the possibilities. They arrive at an agreed upon forecast through compromise, observation, experience, and weather history or by what it has done in the past in a similar situation. Predicting huge climate changes is just simply not possible with our current weather models or even saying that this or that pollutant affected the weather is also in the impossible realm. We just don't know.
And what of an eruption like Mt. Saint Helens which blew out one half of the mountaintop and released enough ash to cover cities? I'd say she put out more sulfur and greenhouse gases in 1 minute than we have in 200 years.
There is evidence of what has been called 'The Little Ice Age' in which average temps fell significantly. Some claim we are still in this period and that just now we may be coming out of it.
Personally I think it's too extreme on either side of the argument and the correct answer is probably somewhere down the middle of both sides. Reducing emissions cannot be bad for sure so we should strive for that. However banning ideas and technologies that make our economies what they are is just as ludicrous as saying we shouldn't give a rat's ass what we stick in the atmosphere.
I agree that both sides probably have concrete evidence for and against global warming. But I also agree that both sides are pushing an agenda and both sides tend to get into radicalism and name calling. You are not a stupid scientist if you believe something is affecting our climate but just as equally so you are not stupid for believing that something is not enough to affect our climate. Calling one side stupid or claiming the facts 100% point to this or that is ludicrous since neither side has 100% concrete undisputable evidence of the claims they make.
So I say let's do all we can to reduce emissions if anything to just improve the air quality which may in turn help our lungs and lead to a healthier lifestyle. But let's not go off the deep end and start banning this or that in a radical effort to rid ourselves of fossil fuels. Do that and you may find yourself like California did a few years ago....in the dark without power.