[cutter]

Originally Posted by sburns2421

Everything I've read in the last decade shows that the average temperature is increasing, albeit slightly and not beyond the historical range. OTOH, the estimations for global temperature earlier than the 20th century are sketchy at best. Even going back a couple of hundred years, the data is heavily fragmented and largely inaccurate from records taken by man. We are talking about fractions of degrees, impossible to measure way back when. Using tree ring or ice layer thickness to estimate the summer of 492 BC seems like a waste of time, other than to say the temp goes through cycles.

True that we can't tell fractions of degrees, but we can tell the temperature throughout the ages pretty well from core samples, but if you have a link supporting these samples being heavily fragmented please share.
It's the only thing that I am aware of that we have for reference.
The alternative is just excluding it all together and go one like nothing is happening.

I don't doubt man contributes to the amount of heat energy released into the atmosphere, and that the composition of the atmosphere is slightly different than it was decades ago, however the extent of our influence is vastly overrated, IMHO. The underlying motivator of liberalism (

eco

-liberalism in this case) is selfishness and self-

centeredness

. WE have to be the ones causing global warming because WE are the most important beings ever to swim, crawl, or walk on this rock. The other erroneous conclusion of this logic is that WE are the only ones that can stop it. While counter-intuitive it is nonetheless obvious if you think about the militant

greenies

.

It could go the other way too, the opposition that seemingly be based solely on these hack scientists say, WE CANNOT affect the environment,
WE make no impact on this world what so ever, extreme Eco leftists like the DNR say that WE can actually over hunt and over fish, but WE are so small of a factor WE can never do anything to affect any part of our environment ever, and too think so is just a super ego hysteria.

Some see the Earth as a rather fragile balance, an ecological knife-edge where any small perturbation will send the planet (and US) into chaos which will ultimately lead to OUR destruction.

I think it is more of a matter of OUR massive amounts of greenhouse emissions might just be enough to melt the ice on Greenland causing the gulf stream to stop, the earth will survive, and so will humans, but I really don't want to see the time 6 billion people starve to death because of a ice age most publish scientists say will happen, and more then likely in our lifetimes.

Earth will live on, but I guess I'm so selfish that I don't want the planet to break out into anarchy and watch 6 billion people die if there is even a chance in hell to stop it, and there might be.

History has shown however, that even after great cataclysms the Earth is a resilient old girl. Self-regulating as well.

As an aside, at first glance you would think volcanic eruptions, with their GW of heat energy and millions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere would lead to global warming, but that would be wrong. One big eruption and our global warming worries are over
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volc...e_effects.html

BTW, I found this on the

internet

, which among his many gifts to the world was invented by Al Gore .

Thanks for the link you obviously never read.

INFLUENCE ON THE OZONE EFFECT:

The halide acid

HCl

has been shown to be effective in destroying ozone; however, the latest studies show that most volcanic

HCl

is confined to the troposphere (below the stratosphere), where it is washed out by rain. Thus, it never has the opportunity to react with ozone. On the other hand, satellite data after the 1991 eruptions of

Mt.Pinatubo

(the Philippines) and Mt. Hudson (Chile) showed a 15-20% ozone loss at high latitudes, and a greater than 50% loss over the Antarctic! Thus, it appears that volcanic eruptions can play a significant role in reducing ozone levels. However, it is an indirect role, which cannot be directly attributed to volcanic

HCl

. Eruption-generated particles, or aerosols, appear to provide surfaces upon which chemical reactions take place. The particles themselves do not contribute to ozone destruction, but they interact with chlorine- and bromine-bearing compounds from human-made

CFCs

. Fortunately, volcanic particles will settle out of the stratosphere in two or three years, so that the effects of volcanic eruptions on ozone depletion are short lived. Although volcanic aerosols provide a catalyst for ozone depletion, the real culprits in destroying ozone are human-generated

CFCs

. Scientists expect the ozone layer to recover due to restrictions on

CFCs

and other ozone-depleting chemicals by the United Nations Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. However, future volcanic eruptions will cause fluctuations in the recovery process.

From your own link!
If you are going to say we can't do any damage, at least post links that agree with you.
LOL