When the Vikings had vinyards in Greenland, we really don't know too much beyond the Holocene but theoretically it may have been idylic, as in the Garden of Eden or Amagadaveda if you prefer. (I had a friend who was in the studio when that was recorded by Iron Butterfly, not sure if he was the producer of record, he was a pretty slippery character.) :angel:
"To God one day can be as a thousand years and a thousand years can be as one day."
Other thoughts on this topic.
Carbon credit markets in Europe were a miserable failure, Cap and Trade will make the rich richer and the poor poorer and do not much to change climate, one way or the other. (except that those on the bottom end of the scale will have their way paid by those in the middle.)
When you say 'make the government wealthier and the private sector less prominate', you have the right idea but the wrong facts.
The government, to which the masses must support, or else, only goes deeper in debt to the top end of the private sector, namely the central bank, ie, the federal reserve which is privately owned.
Other industry and privately owned property becomes more and more influenced by government, ie 'owned'.
So what we have is creeping fascism, (or the other side of the same coin, communism or socialism). That is more and more power handed to the rulers in one way or another.
If you buy the whole global warming theory and many do, possibly because they are constantly brainwashed by the media, if you actually do the math you can still only come to the conclussion that human activity is very negligible unless you seize on the trigger theory, in that our small input might be the trigger that would bring about catastropic change.
Well now, how about sunspots or the lack thereof?? How about undersea volcanic activity?? (I'm firmly convinced that an undersea rift in the arctic ocean floor emitting hot gases there has far more to do with less sea ice and melting glaciers than human activity might have ever thought about.) As far as undersea volcanic vents, those are often in very deep areas, and by the time the water column is towards the surface, the temperature has mostly dispersed. Look at the mid-oceanic ridge in the Atlantic. You can't notice it on the surface. Furthermore, there is sea ice right on top of it, of no distinguishable difference in thickness than neighboring areas, throughout most of the year (sea ice used to be fairly perennial up there, but lately it has not been as widespread, to the point of new shipping lanes being utilized).
Then there is El Nino and La Nina which we can observe to affect climate, not only in North America but worldwide, and what do we know about what causes them???
I'd venture to say that SUV emississions in California have zero effects but does my theory have anything to do with California's stupid reactionary, paranoid ecological policies (that the rest of America is expected to pay for.?)
You don't have to convince me about the silliness of carbon markets or cap and trade. That is trying to put the genie back in the bottle in the most painful way.
As for the rest, I could go line-by-line, but then no one would read our exchanges. So I will cherry pick a little.
A lot of the resistance to the idea of anthropogenic-driven climate change is political. This is very much due to it being used as a leverage and lately a bludgeon on the political front, certainly being pushed as part of a larger agenda by some. That doesn't mean that it isn't a real phenomenon that we should be concerned about.
As far as the math behind human global climate change, you have to do the math not based on a yearly or even decade-long effect, but rather as a look at the cascading effect of the accumulating CO2 (which there certainly is, although I know you will argue it isn't a climate changing agent) and other greenhouse gases. I have heard climate as being described as (ironically) an oil tanker. It takes awhile relative to human perception to turn and change, but not a particularly lot of energy to do so. Yes, relative to the sun and Milankovitch cycles and the like humans have very little impact. But that slight tug can be all the difference.
You mention sunspots... Well of course the Sun is the largest driver of climate by far. That doesn't absolve other influences. The drivers of life for humans are oxygen, water, and food. That doesn't mean no harm can come to us as long as we have those things.
El Nino and El Nina's triggers are not fully understood, but it is known what they are, as far as a "sloshing" undersea thermal zones, swapping the hot western Pacific surface temperatures, with the cold water upwellings of the South American coast. We don't fully understand the human brain, but that doesn't mean we can't say a lot about the function of the brain, or more specifically what things will keep it healthy/make it sick.
Compared to coal plants, sure SUV emissions in California isn't a huge contributor. But we need electricity and coal is an abundant and cheap resource. SUV's are often a luxury and not fully "utilized," if you will pardon the quite lame pun. I don't personally believe they should be illegal. I just think people should be aware about efficiency. No matter what one believes about climate change, efficiency is good for the economy, but personally and nationally.
My frustration is that when I talk about climate change, I have to disclaim the wacky political stuff, the silly gaffs and exaggerated junk of politicians such as Gore, and the like. Gore does as much to hurt his cause as help it. The average climate change "believer" is filled with apocalyptic misinformation.
EDIT: Good post, TT. There is a healthy middle ground between grinding all economies and human progress to a hault to try and turn back the clock, and pretending humans could not play a role at all.
