A Blog for the Curious and the Scientifically Perplexed

This is the story of a great journey that started with a great thought. One day in 1895 a boy looked into a mirror and wondered what the universe would look like if he could travel on a beam of light. That sixteen year old boy was Albert Einstein and that one thought started him on the road to discover his Theory of Relativity. The great man has been reinvented as Albert 2.0 to come back and blog about a journey through space on a beam of light and explain the science behind everything from atoms, blackholes to global warming. If you've just joined and want to start at the beginning use the index on the left. If you're bored try these links below just for fun.


UNSCRAMBLE EINSTEIN'S BRAIN
PRACTISE SAVING THE WORLD FROM ASTEROIDS
ALIEN CONTACT CALCULATOR
HEAR THE REAL EINSTEIN TALK ABOUT E=Mc2.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Climate Change Made Simple

“OK Albert, give it to me straight about climate change. Is the world getting warmer?”

I think the answer to that question is a definite yes.

“So why are some people saying global warming is a liberal conspiracy by the makers of wind generators and the like?”

You are confusing something that a lot of other people are confusing too. There are two questions about climate change not just one. The first is the one you have just asked, ‘Is the world getting warmer?’ The second question is what is causing that change. It will be impossible to be absolutely sure about the cause of any temperature change until it is too late. Trying to prove that one thing causes another is surprisingly difficult when it comes to anything as big as the planet. People who seem to be arguing against climate change are usually arguing against the cause of climate change.

“So the world is definitely getting warmer?”

Here is a graph of the world temperature over the last 150 years. The last ten years have been the warmest for a very long time, almost 1oC warmer than back in 1860.


“Only a degree? That’s not much. The temperature can change that much from one day to the next.”

True but that is just the average so in some places it may be hotter and other places cooler. What is also certain is that glaciers and ice at the North Pole are disappearing.

“Does that really matter?”

What happens to the ice that melts?

“It goes into the sea.”

So the sea level rises and low lying cities will be flooded. The sea level has been rising for the last hundred years as the temperature has risen. Ice is also shiny and so ice helps to reflect a lot of the sun’s heat back into space. The worry is that once the ice starts to go, the world will heat up faster and faster as more of the sun’s heat is absorbed rather than reflected.

“So what is all this talk about carbon foot prints and CO2?”

Since humans invented factories and engines we have been pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

“Why are coal, oil and gas called fossil fuels?”

Oil, coal and gas are all made from fossilized sunlight.

“Huh?”

Millions of years ago carbon dioxide, water and light were converted into sugar and various other molecules, by photosynthesis in plants. When the plants died some of them ended up being buried and over millions of years these prehistoric compost heaps were buried deeper and deeper. Cooked by the heat of the rocks deep in the Earth and squeezed by millions of tons of rock above, the compost was converted in oil or coal and sometimes gas as well. This is why oil and coal are called fossil fuels; they are a type of fossilized compost. When they are burnt to release energy, the carbon dioxide and water that was trapped by photosynthesis millions of years ago is released again. And as we know, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. So even though you could say that most power stations and cars are already solar powered because it took sunshine to make the fossil fuels in the first place, this isn’t any help to the planet. At the moment CO2 makes up only a tiny proportion of the Earth's atmosphere, around three ten thousandth's of it. But all this extra CO2 from cars and factories could double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the next few decades.


“Won’t some of the plants and trees today end up buried and eventually turn into oil?”

I suppose they will.

“So what is the problem? We burn some fossil fuels now but if more are being made there shouldn’t be any problem should there?”

Good thinking but the fossil fuels being burnt at the moment have taken millions of years to form and will be used up in a few hundred years. So CO2 is being released far faster than it can be turned back into oil and coal. The question is can the Earth cope with millions of years of CO2 being released all in one go?

“Can it?”

Well the only way to be sure is to burn it all and see what happens. We’ve been doing that and the world has been getting warmer and warmer. So if we are worried about CO2 we need to stop burning fossil fuels and find other ways of powering our cars and factories. If we made fuel directly from plants, biofuel, the CO2 released as we drive around would be the same CO2 which was captured from the atmosphere a few months earlier. That way the amount of CO2 wouldn’t increase.

“That’s a good idea isn’t it?”

It is as long as it doesn’t take too much energy to make fuel from plants like corn in the first place. The other problem is that rich countries with enough food might buy up so much corn that poor countries will find it even harder to feed all their people.

“Oh, I’d never thought of that.”

It’s not even a new idea. When the diesel engine was first invented it was designed to use peanut oil and when cars were being made popular for the first time by Henry Ford back in 1903 he designed his Model T Ford to use alcohol as a biofuel.

“Wow, so he knew about climate change back then?”

Not at all, he was no environmental angel. He thought it would be cheaper.

“So why didn’t he build the Model-T Ford to run on alcohol?

Oh, the usual reasons, politics. In 1919 alcohol was banned in North America during the prohibition era and powerful oil interests pushed for gasoline to be used on its own, but imagine how different the world would be if cars had been burning ethanol for 90 years not fossil fuels. The Middle East would be a very different place and world politics would be completely different. Better? Who knows, but certainly they’d be less CO2 in the atmosphere.

“So are humans and all this extra CO2 really responsible for this increase in temperature? Last time we spoke you said that the climate on Earth has had all sort of crises over the last few hundred million years. Ice ages, mini-ice ages and all sorts. If cars were only invented a hundred years ago and the climate has been doing wild things for millions of years it’s not necessarily the fault of humans releasing too much CO2.”

No, but it could be. If there’s any more than a reasonable chance that humans are damaging the planet then they should probably do something about it before it’s too late, don’t you think?


“I was hoping that scientists could give me a more definitive answer. It seems like a simple question to me.”

Well, it’s a question you would have to ask just a single scientist who only has one hand if you want a definite answer.

“Why?”

Because, if you find two scientists they will always disagree about some detail because that is their job. After all, if you accept everything you read you without questioning it you are not a proper scientist.

“OK, but why only a one handed scientist? What’s that got to do with it?”

If a scientist has two hands then he or she can always say, ‘well, on the one hand CO2 is the most likely cause, but on the other hand we can’t completely disprove other theories.’

“Not bad Albert, not exactly funny but not bad for you. Jokes aside why can't scientists just work out what will happen to the world’s climate with a computer so we can stop talking about it and do something about it?"

Nice idea but that assumes that scientists can predict the weather and politicians around the planet can agree what to do about it. Humans seem very bad at both these things. Weathermen have some of the fastest and most expensive computers in the world to help tell them what the weather will be like tomorrow. Initially the calculations took so long that by the time they had got the answer for tomorrow's weather, the weather had already happened. By the time computers got fast enough, the predictions were still not perfect. Then came along a bunch of mathematicians would told them they were wasting their time even trying. This was the birth of Chaos Theory and for a time weathermen, or meteorologists as they call themselves which is a bit odd as they don’t study meteors, were a bit depressed as predicting the weather accurately seemed impossible.

“What is Chaos Theory?”

Chaos theory says that even in systems that seem to have well defined mathematical rules for what should happen next, minute variations can, over time, lead to completely different results. Take a pendulum swinging back and forward, what could be more predictable? But add a little pendulum on the end of the pendulum and it starts to swing very strangely. Add just one more little pendulum on the end and it will swing so chaotically that it is impossible to predict the pattern. Now the climate of the whole Earth is a lot more complicated than a triple pendulum, but it can behave just as unpredictably. We can’t predict whether it’s going to be a good or bad summer next year because of this unpredictability, so predicting the effects of climate change or reducing our production of CO2 is at best and educated guess.

“So Albert, what do you, as a no-handed computer recreation of a famous scientist, say about climate change?”

Imagine you are sitting in your house as a forest fire gets nearer and nearer. What are you going to do?

“What’s that got to do with it?”

Trust me, it will make sense.

“OK. When I got really worried about the flames getting too close I’d eventually leave to go somewhere safer.”

Now imagine the Earth is that house. There is nowhere else for us to go. All we have is this one little planet. Anyway would you really just sit in your house and do nothing until you could see the flames?

“Of course not, I’d phone the fire brigade.”

Would you expect the fire brigade to do anything as the flames continued to spread?

“Of course, I would.”

Imagine they said, ‘We didn’t cause the fire. It was caused by the sun being too hot and drying out the forest too much, so we don’t have to do anything about it.’ What would think then?

“I’d be furious, they should try and do what they could. They could drop water on the flames from helicopters, that would help whatever caused the fires in the first place.”

Exactly. So even if most scientists are wrong and humans aren’t the most important cause of global warming, it doesn’t make sense to do nothing. We know CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas, so reducing human release of CO2 might be the only sensible thing we can do to try and stop the Earth getting hotter and hotter. If there is something you can do which could help isn’t it worth a try? If that something would also avoid polluting the planet, what do we have to loose? At worst, if we are wrong about humans causing global warming and wrong that reducing our CO2 will help, we’ll have a warmer planet that is less polluted.

“Seems simple when you say it like that?”

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

34 Comments:

  1. Bonnie @ AZhttp said...
    Your site has won a Blog of the Day Award (BOTDA)



    Award Code



    Thank you,



    famous quotes
    Anonymous said...
    Hello, my name is Milan. :) I stumbled onto this site via another educational site entitled howstuffworks.com, after viewing an article on special relativity. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist (I've never even been to college and I work on a farm), but I've always been curious about the concept of relativity. I began reading this series of blogs starting with the very first one, and I couldn't take my eyes away from it. I've read the entire series, and have been fascinated every step of the way. So far, you've covered events, ideas and questions that have always sparked my interest, with captivating historical references and a very imaginative literary method. The only point at which I became disappointed was when I reached the last blog. :( I'm really looking forward to the next edition in the series. Keep it up!!
    Anonymous said...
    re: north pole ice melt ... "So the sea level rises and low lying cities will be flooded."

    Einstein would never make that mistake.
    Anonymous said...
    re: "Here is a graph of the world temperature over the last 150 years."

    Thermodynamically incorrect on many fundamental levels. Again, not something Einstein would say ... it's not even average global temperature. The graph shows a statistical sampling of temperature anomalies, arithmetically averaged. It's trend has a widely accepted value in this discussion, but equate to earth's temperature is unscientific at the very least.

    Great site -- love the perspective.
    Anonymous said...
    pretty good excopt temperature graph is 7 years out of date and recently revised significantly downward for the 90's and the hockey stick one has been disproven and removed from current IPCC report further muddying the waters.
    Kav said...
    Nice blog.

    the comments from the last anonymous are not correct regarding hockey stick and IPCC report. Also the temperature were not revised significantly downward in the sense that you would notice a difference on the graph you have produced.

    Also although you talk about the problems in predicting weather surely you should be talking about climate, which is a different thing entirely. I'm not saying that predicting climate is easy, but it is confusing to talk about chaotic systems - although the weather is chaotic the climate acts in a more organised fashion.
    Anonymous said...
    Surely Albert Einstein would have understood that 150 years is no significant time span in natural history.

    As to whether he would have bought into the precautionary principle and advocated massive "climate policies" is anybody's guess.
    Bente Lilja Bye said...
    Hi Albert,

    Great site! I think Albert would agree that pointing out the inaccuracy is important and yet come to the conclusion that it is stupid NOT to act. Wrong and false both about the existence of global warning and/or whether it is caused by humans is irrelevant to the fact that the humans on this planet will benefit from keeping it clean and be smart about how we use the planets resources.

    I cannot believe why this is such a big issue. It's only common sense - you do not need to be Einstein to understand it!
    Ignacio said...
    Hi Albert,
    Congratulations, I think your approach is unique and I love it.
    I think the graph on growing temperatures is biased, and I wouldn't expect you doing that, that is stressing relativity a little bit too much. Because as your theory proposes, everything depends on the reference. It seems you carefully chose as initial point the cooles time in the last 1000 years, the period so-called Little Ice Age.
    Then the mistake on melting North Pole, I think it is well-known melting of floating ice does not affect sea-level. Only ice melting in Greenland or Antarctic would cause that, supposing noting else changes. Because as temperature rises, atmosphere is able to keep more evaporated water in it, not everything goes to the sea. Furthermore, the IPCC will soon publish a report explaining Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing, and will grow even thicker, because of increased snowing, associated to increased evaporation, due to increased temperature.
    Finally, you talk abut two questions on global warming: is it happening, is it caused by human action. But you miss another one, is global warming good or bad for human life?
    Jacob said...
    Einstein would have known the only thing constant about our worldwide climate is that it is always changing... man didn't cause ice ages, and less than 1 degree is hardly a trend, unless you're trying to sell something ;)
    Anonymous said...
    If snow is accumulating in central Antarctica or the top of Greenland when it used to rarely fall there, it is because it is now warm enough for the moisture to not have precipitated out before it got there.

    This is a sign of climate warming not cooling.

    A sign of climate cooling would be increased snowfall where it used to rain.
    James R said...
    I hate to be on the side of Al Gore in this argument, so I won't be. Einstein wasn't someone who studied climates; his word wouldn't be law about this. Still, Einstein I believe was an environmentalist at heart and it's safe to assume from his public image that he might lean more towards the cautious side.
    Quickly though, IPCC definitely seems to be a creation of the UN. IPCC seems to have its own agenda, wanting funding and the UN is more then happy to use this alarm to hide their shady dealings. Seemingly the cry against global warming, as ‘Einstein’ said in this piece, always comes from those with an agenda against the causers. Also, the research done is usually by political scientists and not often the private sector. Also, let it be reminded that though this is a more stable producer of CO2, human life is still a major one. Humans are lil' CO2 emitters that produce an alarming that would make a gas baron blush. I believe the soaring population caused by the industrial revolution might be a larger impact.
    ^_^ On the other hand, (Yes, I have two hands.)I didn't know about the use of alcohol as the original fuel source and simply walking onto an university and asking around shows you the split between Professors and students alike. I think you did well to present this, while articulating that Einstein would probably lean more towards leaving the environment alone. (But who really knows these things?)
    -Insane 3rd Year Physicist, lover of this site.
    PS: I hate IPCC.
    Scottar said...
    The author of this site is very simple minded as opposed to a high schoolers blog: Ponder the Maunder. It appears Albert pulled the graphs right out of the IPCC's website. In 1860 the world was climbing out of the Little Ice Age which occurred right after the Mid Evil Warming period where some scientists show that it was even warmer. I read a geologist's assessment that the oceans where three feet higher then. And the world has been warming erratically since the last ice age when the ice over the Great Lakes where a mile high. Must of been great skiing for all those Neanderthals back then.

    Yes glaciers have been melting but not any faster than the previous centuries. The ocean rise during the last century was a whole 3.5 inches. Like, that will really flood the sewers of New York. I read of that the positive forcing of increasing CO2 is a declining logarithmic function that will not lead to a tipping point. The only tipping is gullible people sanity when they buy into all this hysteria.

    The leading IPCC GCM guru said that the climate models where just tools-NOT PREDICTORS. So that IPCC claim that the recent temperature increases are due to emissions is based on their very questionable GCMs.

    Yep, they use to burn alcohol back then but gasoline was a better fuel, less corrosive, less flammable, more energy. A better biofuel would be butanol.

    The biggest impact humans are having on the environment is the resources they consume and the land it takes to provide those resources. Controlling CO2 emissions would do very little to prevent temperature increases but it will sure impact the economy, AKA pocketbook. It's a bunch of Envirocrats and grant chasing opportunists that are creating this global warming fear mongering over CO2 emissions.

    Go to these sites for a reality check:

    www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.php
    adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com
    Anonymous said...
    I would like to endorse Scottar's comments and add a few. The IPPC's models used a forcing for water vapor, this has been shown to be incorrect by the Aqua satellite observations, the effect is NEGATIVE.
    Ocean temperatures are a better metric for the Earth's average heat content because of greater heat capacity of water over air. Sea temperatures are falling, according to the 3000 odd array of remote sensing buoys that record down to level where the temp. is a constant 4 Centigrade.
    The Aquila satellite shows that the periodic currents in the Oceans are all turning to a negative, cooling phase.
    The Solar component of warming was measured by the incomplete so called 'Total Solar Insolation' measurement, u.v., electrical and radio inputs that are much higher in periods of increased sunspot cycles. The present cycle 23 is now 13 years, the last time it was this long a very cool period was about to happen, (Napoleon, Moscow) Cycle 24 has been down graded to moderate or low, and 25 is almost universally agreed to be a low activity one.
    Without the warmth and added CO2 over the last few decades, which have added up to 20% to the Earth's food supply we would be in trouble, cutting CO2, which contributes with water and hydrogen from water approx. 97% of all biomass we will be cutting our throats in the coming cooling 30 yrs. in my humble opinion!
    Anonymous said...
    I can hardly believe I just read that last post; didn't think there were any politicians on this blog.
    I don't think the oceans will rise 60 feet and sink all the coastal cities, but it is folly to think that we can pee in the pool forever...
    Most of the worlds lungs are in the southern hemisphere, and we have been decimating it for a long time. When you add that to the excessive CO2 contributions, it does make a scary scenario!
    Whether one believes in global warming or not, it is rude to even suggest that fossil fuels are good, or that using food for gas is better. Find an alternative; on this blog it is noted that hydrogen is the most prevalent element in the universe!! Why are we not following up on this?? We need to step up and start using what nature has provided, instead of forcing our will on everything...
    Anonymous said...
    I should think that id the ocean temperature were falling that it would mean more ice is melting into it, causing temporary drops in temperature. If the ocean were constant, or even getting warmer, I'd say that disproves the melting idea...but for right now, if more ice is in the water each year, until all the ice is gone, its gonna be a bit colder!!
    Anonymous said...
    But do you have any proof that rise in temperature is caused by human activity?
    Anonymous said...
    Garbage In, Garbage Out
    Ignorance begats incoherance
    Anonymous said...
    re Last comment. It seems strange
    that a smug know-it all climate change commentator can't spell incoherence. It seems that climate change denial types aren't ominiscient after all. There's a surprise!
    Yvonne said...
    Hi My name is Yvonne and I want to ask you about a few things on climate change everyone is putting it down to 02.But dont it make more sense if you think about it.The world is a round Ball right.Now if you had a Ball and you started to dig into it on one side and started to take all the gold you could find and then on another part of the ball you dug out all the diamonds you could find somewhere else you found some thing now you are taking all thees things from this ball and you are not putting anything back you put up big skyscraper on one side can anyone tell me would that ball not get light on one side and over loaded on the other side would that not make the ball tilt or worse still light and if we got light we would drift nearer to the sun that is making our climate warmer.Dont forget it is not just oil and coal we have taken from the earth we have left holes every where by taking something or othe and we have never put anything back I could go on and on with what we have taken from the earth we take sand from one place to use in another.To me that is what climate Change is all about and not just down to 02 I do hope you can answer my ideas Many Thanks Yvonne
    Yvonne said...
    Hi My name is Yvonne and I want to ask you about a few things on climate change everyone is putting it down to 02.But dont it make more sense if you think about it.The world is a round Ball right.Now if you had a Ball and you started to dig into it on one side and started to take all the gold you could find and then on another part of the ball you dug out all the diamonds you could find somewhere else you found some thing now you are taking all thees things from this ball and you are not putting anything back you put up big skyscraper on one side can anyone tell me would that ball not get light on one side and over loaded on the other side would that not make the ball tilt or worse still light and if we got light we would drift nearer to the sun that is making our climate warmer.Dont forget it is not just oil and coal we have taken from the earth we have left holes every where by taking something or othe and we have never put anything back I could go on and on with what we have taken from the earth we take sand from one place to use in another.To me that is what climate Change is all about and not just down to 02 I do hope you can answer my ideas Many Thanks Yvonne
    Anonymous said...
    I figure I understand the global warming problem well enough but there are a few aeas that feel a bit grey. For instance I see very little about The runaway acceleration of the effect. You already mentioned the reduction of heat reflection as polar ice caps with thier high reflectivity allowing more heating by absorption. There are others - As the earth warms the atmosphere will hold increasing levels of water vapour and water vapour is another greenhouse gas. This will increase insulation and increase warming. Warmer atmosphere will increase rates of methane production by faster bacterial breakdown etc - I reckon its all much closer than we think
    Anonymous said...
    If you consider the earth in the solar system, the main drivers of climate are the spinning earth, the incidence of the solar winds, the size strength and orientation of the magnetosphere, the earths molten core, and the impact and movement of other bodies, asteroids, comets etc. These are amongst the most likely causes of variation in climate in the past. They are likely to be the drivers of climate change now.
    There is only one provable consequence of higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and that is not warming but an increase in plant growth.
    It is not right to say that even if CO2 emmissions do not contribute to climate change we should reduce them. If we base any decisions on wrong conclusions we are bound to make matters worse.
    Anonymous said...
    It doesnt matter whether the facts are right or wrong in this. You're all missing the point. That climate change is real and it WILL effect us all whether it be in the near or far future doing something now is what counts. Stop caring about who's fault and stop listening to everyone's opinion because the more you debate about it the less time we have to do something about it. So tell all those politicians who think they know what's best for the world to get up off their butt and do something because even if there isnt a real problem with climate change in spending the money for the unknown we fix a the problem of pollution in the mean time. Nothing bad can come of doing something about this but there will be severe consequences if we don't do something about it..and now.
    Anonymous said...
    what we should be doing is finding cleaner sources of energy, finding new efficiencies in energy use, and technology that drives new food production. all this should be done not because of climate change hysteria, but because we all can agree that clean drinking water and smog free cities are far more important and scientifically proven to exist. the depletion of the ozone layer in the 80s due to chlorofluorocarbons was scientifically proven, and with that overwhelming evidence politicians and the business community acted rather quickly and efficiently to rid manufacturing and retail products of this chemical. so i ask, why is climate change not being acted upon in as much of an expedient manner? probably because the politicians are rightfully paying lip service to enviro-nuts while trying to paste together a clear picture from those who actually have the education and accreditation to call themselves scientists.

    brad (not afraid to leave name, just dont have any accounts)
    Tyr said...
    A key point that is over looked is the effect on crops. Plants require a minimal amount of heat to develop though their life cycles. This leads to development as a function of Degree-Days(DD) above a threshold temperature, usually a soil temperature of 5.6 C, 50cm below the surface. Crops require a certain amount of Growing Degree-Days (GDD), but it doesn't matter if they are spread out or not. High-yield crops require larger Base temperatures and/or more GDDs. Also once crops have accrued enough energy to survive, additional energy goes towards seeds and fruit. Crops that lack energy will not have enough extra energy to put towards reproduction.
    Therefor an increase of just a degree or two can significantly increase crop yield. Indeed, the Medieval Warm Period saw growth in urbanization as farmers moved beyond sustenance farming.


    Ref:Encyclopedia of world climatology
    By John E. Oliver
    http://books.google.ca/books?id=-mwbAsxpRr0C&pg=PA316ei=Zyb6ScG5NY7SNLvvtLUE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA316,M1
    Prof. James Barrante said...
    Hi Albert,

    You seem to be intelligent? I only have two questions that no one seems to want to answer. If CO2 is driving global temperature change, then what is driving atmospheric CO2? That is, what caused atmospheric CO2 to go up and down over the past 400,000 years? Is it possible that it's the other way around - that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are caused by the temperature of the oceans, which in turn is controlled by the big, yellow thing in the sky? Wow! Wouldn't that be a bummer>
    albert2.0 said...
    Dear Professor.
    A case of unidimensional thinking? There are many parameters and interactions in complex systems. The question is simply which ones can we control? Certainly not the sun. Our own activities? Yes. The point I make in conclusion is quite accepting that current models may be wrong but one beneficial consequence of current beliefs will be a move to less polluting forms of energy generation. Surely a good thing?
    Mike - retired physics instructor said...
    Dr. Albert,

    Perhaps a good thing? Yes, to a point. It is true that the scientific situation is dynamic. It is also true that the vast majority of the causes are subtle. However, to invest a large part of the worlds scientific treasure on one of the most insignificant players in the green house effect equation is in my humble opinion wasting intellectual and physical capital on a clever ruse. Global warming exists. Global cooling exists. Both are emergent properties from a miriad of players in the physical world. I am afraid that man is one of the insignificant ones. We like to think of ourselves as having the ability to change climate. Or, at least 'influence' it for the good of the planet and of course ourselves. We don't seem to understand that we are part of nature not natures master. The inertia of climate change in either direction is enormous and the time scale is on the order of hundreds if not thousands of years. If there is anything to fear from global warming it is not our contribution to it, it is our overreaction from it.
    Dennis said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    Dennis said...
    I forgot, did anyone ever mention... What happens if we continue to let oil, coal, methane, etc., build up? Is that a good thing? I know its not a problem for this generation, but then again... neither is the national debt. Let it slide? Do we want huge oil deposits to one day rupture and contaminate the world. Not saying that we shouldn't reduce the speed we are using it up, but I'm thinking we shouldn't just leave it there either. It in and of itself is a contaminate of the planet. Short of somehow tossing it off this rock, the only means of disposing of it is to turn it back into what it used to be. (Is that not the same idea of using biofuels)?
    Anonymous said...
    Dear Albert,
    A very Unique explaination.I loved it...laughed a little at times...no ..no prof...dont get me wrong ....all you've written is not a joke to me [i am serious about it and have made 2 posts on Gather,If you do have time do see it ,its a little amatureous...but I am trying my bit too. ]but its the funny way you have put it across.
    Yes,I agree what ever the reasons for CC. we humans must what we can to mitigate it.
    Congrats.... a well written
    Anonymous said...
    UH HUH. Give us a year by year for the last 10 years. How would that chart look? Inconvenient?
    SkullandPeacock said...
    I just did a link to this page on my blog skullandpeacock.blogspot.com - although you wrote this two years ago - it is still a great overview of climate change made easy. Thank you for the great blog : )

Post a Comment