Oh my what a rant, sounds like you have a lot of fear of the unknown. I hope I can give you some facts that can help make smart decisions that can make a difference. By the way, Rush Limbaugh is not the source of any of my facts, as I do not source anybody who's primary function is ratings. Just like a corporations first product is thier stock price, a non-profit's first product is publicity, and an American "journalist's" first job is ratings.
I am for conservation of resources, in fact I am a member of Ducks Unlimited, and often work with the forestry service to restore forest land. There is a differece between global warming and the green house effect, and I should have been clearer about my point. Gloal warming arguing the CO2 effect on the atmosphere is only a correlation, not causation. In other words, there is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming. It is more likely it is one small piece in a much, much bigger puzzle.
The fact they call it the green house effect is because plants will grow better. Thus I think starvation of millions is not likely. Second, green houses do not pump in CO2 to keep them warm so the name is misleading. Third, plants grow better in rich CO2 environments, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, and putting it back into the ground. Where else would all the oil in the ground come from? Forth, a warmer climate will be "moister" causing an increase in clouds, increases in rain, and thus start to cool the Earth again. So eventually there will again be balance in the CO2 cycle.
Since you list yourself as living in MN, and if you are really concerned about CO2 cycle, I recommend you purchase an E85 vehicle (Chevy and Ford have many models and most are the popular models). E85 is better than hybrid vehicles as they are cheaper to run, burn cleaner. I have two. A Ford Taurus, and a Chevy Silverado. 85% of the fuel was corn last year taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. My car puts that CO2 back into the atmosphere, and corn next year takes it back out. Nice and eco-friendly year-to-year.
R. Neil is correct. Starting in 1944 until the late 50's, earth was significantly cooling, and glaciers were growing. In fact many were growing until the 70s and starting in about 1984, they started to shrink. Glaciers are highly fuid and dynamic. They retreat to acheive a balance in mass. Look it up on the Wikipedia. But the facts are a 1 degree C increase in temperatures near a glacier is like the glacier receiving 25% less snowfall, or receiving 30% more sunshine. However, looking at glaciers in a 20 year, or 100 year period is not correct. Glaciers age at 1000s of years. And glaciers come and go, just like oceans do. Look at Arizona's desert. It used to be ocean. But there is no net loss of glaciers worldwide, as areas in Western Norway and New Zealand growing in depth and advancing very fast. The global changes we are seeing are normal, expected, and not primarily caused by man.
Some areas the glaciers reside in are getting 50% less precipitation in recent years. If global warming were real, the amount of precipitation falling would actually increase. (As a global measuer, precipitation has actually remained constant). In the worse case precipitation would fall as rain melting the glaciers fast and causing a lot of run-off. However, precipitation continues to fall as snow.
Grolan, you mentioned the .2 degree increase as being a great concern because of the amount of energy it represents. In a way you are correct, but you are wrong. What is happening is some of the glaciers are getting thinner caused by the increase in sunlight hitting them (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html). This causes a little more melting, but a lot more sublimation. Which is one reason why Lake Mead is getting shallower even theough the glaciers feeding it are "melting away".
Deep breath...The earth is receiving more light from the sun in recent years. That is a provable fact and everybody studying it agrees. You said it yourself, Grolan, darker surfaces make the atmosphere warmer. I agree. Every rooftop, every road, every lawn absorbs heat and slowly releases it back to the atmosphere at night keeping the nights warmer, and thus making it easier for the sun to heat the temperature the next day. The loss of the rain forests in the world is most likely the cause of the majority of the warming. If you are looking to make mankind responsible, go for something that is more likely the cause like the removal of plant life in mass quantities. Thus reducing the reflectivity of the Earth's surface.
It does not matter how much energy has been added to the atmosphere. It is only enough to reaise the air temperature (a relatively easy thing to do) .2 degrees. It is the amount of heat energy the ground releases back to the atmosphere at night.
As for my computer creating a net increase in CO2 by consuming electricty? It does not. I pay extra for Excel energy to provide my electricity from Wind power. Even if this were not the case, replacing a halogen lamp (500W) with a flourecent (24W) would do more to reduce energy consumption since my PC (300W) is already Energy Star compliant.
Finally, how do you explain global warming on Mars happening at the same time? Mars has little atmosphere, and the melting of the Martian Ice pack is due to the increase in output of the sun in the past 1000 years or so. As of yet, there has been no life found on Mars.
So in conclusion, CO2 creating global warming is a small piece of a ever increasing puzzle. Glaciers melt and expand over 1000s of years, and this is normal and expected. E85 is a better fuel to use than gas regardless if CO2 is actually a concern. Compact flourecent light bulbs save more energy than turning off your computer. The sun is warmer, causing warming trends on Earth and Mars. Increasing the refectivity of the Earth's surface 1% will reduce the average temperature by 1 degree C. And do not forget to plant trees instead of having big lawns, and help save the rain forests.
