There's unfortunately no way to work around it, but eventually, global warming will induce another ice age, so don't worry about farming . Al Gore and the IPCC both say that water levels will increase because the polar ice caps will melt, etc etc, but think about it logically. Temperatures increasing in the tropics means that there's an increase of humidity, resulting in increased evaporation from those oceans; and, consequently following the thermohaline circulation, that extremely moist air travels directly to the ice caps, where subzero temperatures results in massive snowstorms. It's convenient that the IPCC "forgot" to mention that a temperature increase of one degree centrigrade can't result in 700-foot giant slabs of ice melting. The breaking and reformation (oops, they forgot to show the process of reformation in their videos) of ice is natural. You can't consistently have ice that doesn't shift or break; and you can't have the reformation of ice suddenly stop -- where did all of that moisture go? Certainly it didn't stay in our oceans; otherwise, the Maldives would have sunk already (Professor Nils Axel of Stockholm University did an intriguing investigation on the Maldives, because the IPCC claimed DIRECTLY that the Maldives would be the first island to sink due to global warming [and increased water levels that are supposed to follow it] but there's been an absolute zero increase in water level since 1989, when Margaret Thatcher claimed global warming was real [a political hoax])

 

I didn't accuse you of anything, I just said that that assumption was wrong.

Rush Limbaugh agrees.

 

Sorry, I thought "whoops, wrong" was an indicator that someone was being accused of being incorrect in your opinion and since the entire quote was not replicated, it seemed your intention was to imply it was I . My bad.

While on it however, perhaps I am a little dense but has Man's effect on global warming been actually irrefutably proven?

 

I forgive you.

I think that's not quite the right question because while we're still in the process of global warming, we can't really quantify the current or future impact. What we can answer is whether or not we have an impact on global warming. The answer to that question is, "yes." Whether or not global warming is truly cause for concern which warrants immediate action is less clear.

 

Definte "Impact"? As if the natural heat cycle of the Earth is something we can drive moreso than, say, the sun? We contribute less than 1% of the yearly global carbon dioxide budget already; and carbon dioxide makes up 0.054% of the atmospheric gasses -- so how can you justify that our testpipes and increased horsepowarz are ruining the Earth?

 

Don't put words in my mouth, fella. It's silly to deny that we contribute to global warming when we're pumping a non-trivial amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the accumulation of greenhouse gases (of which carbon dioxide is the primary component) creates global warming. But read what I've been saying carefully because I'm NOT saying that global warming is the end of the world or that it's even worth addressing with any of the world's economic resources...all I've said is that we do, in fact, contribute.

 

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I thought you were leading up to that larger point. But are you saying that the global warming which the earth is going through is natural, man-made, or a mixture of both?

 

It's a mixture, which is why we can't quantify our impact even if we recognize our contribution.

This is heavy stuff...maybe we could talk about abortion, religion, or welfare next.

 

I'm glad you think so, respect +10 for not being polar to either side of the spectrum

Okay, so next question -- what effect do you think carbon dioxide has on the climate? Do you think that as carbon dioxide increases, temperatures go up as well? (It's cruel, but I'm leading you into a trap)

 

I think carbon dioxide accumulation will have an overall warming effect. We've seen the beginnings of that trend. However, the opposite may turn out to be true in the long run. The point is we don't know what will happen...we can only say is happening and even then we can't be sure we really understand our observations. This is literally uncharted territory. We can't even say with absolute certainty what has happened in the past. It could make a certain amount of sense to predict an overall cooling trend, perhaps leading into an ice age. While we can say with certainty that an ice age occurred in relatively recent history, we cannot determine, with the same certainty, the levels of atmospheric CO2 during said age. The reason for this is that the only (well, best) way we have to measure CO2 levels in the past is with ancient ice. However, these sources are incredibly variable and very prone to contamination, so it's hard to use the figures they reveal for scientific prediction. What it comes down to is that there are plenty of theories and ONLY time will tell.