reply to post by __rich__
A 1% difference in average temperature?
Not that it's relevant....because any "average" one wishes to assign has rather broad implications, doesn't it?
What I mean is, should we include ALL the extremes of temperature, to include both poles, and the equator? And everything in-between?
I think this is symptomatic of just why the debate over so-called "global warming", or better, 'climate change', is still ongoing.
The Earth's environment is complex, chaotic, and just possibly may be virtually impossible to ever be able to adequately model, for predictive
Toss in the fact of the Earth's axial tilt, and therefore the seasonal variations, as the planet orbits...the ellipse of the orbit, and the variables
of distance from the Sun (may not be a big factor, but we just don't know..), and other Solar and extra-Solar variables --- to include differences in
the total energy emitted by the Sun in a cyclical manner, and the fact that our entire Solar System is constantly moving, en masse
it is unknown if any extraneous material (such as increased amounts of dust, for instance) also may play a factor, if encountered during our
'travels' as we orbit about the center of our Galaxy....
There is still a great deal of data to collect, and studies to be undertaken...our science may be incapable....it certainly is hampered right now, by
a lot of missing information.
I happen to think that the biota on this planet is remarkably adaptable. It is a harsh truth of nature, that only the fittest survive...they adapt,
or they perish, eventually. Adaptation varies in almost infinite ways, too...depends on the level of environmental pressures, the type of changes,
the organisms, and their rate of reproduction/mutation/adaptation abilities...
WE are the unique species, as we have a skill that others do not --- for survivability, we have technological abilities, and the intellect to use
them, and invent new ones.
Reason the notion of any sort of wide-scale and currently
on-going and active program of so-called "chemtrails" is a fantasy, is
because of its incredibly difficult logistical hurdles, as I've often written, and also the fact that NO ONE has yet a definitve answer, and thus a
course of action to embark upon.
Better to do NOTHING, rather than attempt some misguided effort, and endup making things worse by those actions.
I say do NOTHING, except the more passively oriented sorts of things already ongoing, such as 'cleaner" everything, recycling of waste, and efforts
to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, just to name a few....
...because, again...this planet's biosphere is very resilient. Resilient in the sense that if 'damaged', it too will adapt. AND, I'm not sure
that any significant changes will occur so rapidly, as to be noticeable...except as an "after-the-fact" sort of thing, over many, many human
generations of recording data.
SO....although there is little doubt that Human activity over the entire course of the last nearly two centuries, since the advent of the Industrial
Revolution has caused changes in our environment....even agriculture
, involving our change from nomadic lifestyles, going on for
thousands of years, have an effect too.
Yet, ALL of that has had a minimal cumulative effect, over all those years..."chemtrails" are simply an uber
fantasy, as the science and efficacy behind them is still sketchy...regardless of those sources linked, previously. Those are still "paper tigers"
of theory, and many people have made incredible claims in past, only to fail in the practical implementation efforts of their "grand ideas"...
Worst case scenario, and everything I've written about dire environmental consequences just over the horizon? That they ARE worse, going to get
worse, and are accelerating? Well...WE can adapt, even if it's painful. As a species, WE can survive....I don't think the current biosphere has
any danger of turning into another Venus, for example....and the reason we will endure, is the technological edge we enjoy.
Even without that, we STILL would survive, overall....just a lesser final population, I imagine...
Sorry....I got wordy, maybe from over-thinking the darn thing....
I almost forgot --- speaking of agriculture, that goes hand-in-hand with animal husbandry. I'm talking about herds of methane-spewing critters,
here....creatures that, if not for us, might not have as great a chance at large population survival, in the face of predation in nature...
...still, I found this innovative possible "solution" to the methane problem:
[edit on 29 July 2010 by weedwhacker]