Just stumbled upon this article yesterday. I lived in Key West, curtesy of Uncle Sam, from June of 1970 to July 19, 1971, while serving in the US Navy. What a great duty station back in the day. When the base maintenance workers would trim the coconut palms they would give us all the nuts we wanted.

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-keys-prepare-sea-level-rise-083635582.html

The seas aren't rising in the Keys. The problem is there are so many people there, that they are weighing the island down. If everyone in Key West were to go to one side of the island, it would flip over.

Rolling Stone Magazine is predicting doom for Miami too...but how much credence do you put in this mag?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620

Rolling Stone Magazine is predicting doom for Miami too...but how much credence do you put in this mag?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620

That is a riveting fictionalized account.

Unfortunately, the underlying rise in sea level is not fictional, it's happening. It's not just in Miami, it's elsewhere in the world, including coastal Virginia and Bangladesh. Ice caps are melting, particularly in Greenland.

Who knows how quickly the levels will rise? We will find out, though. Keep rubber duckies handy.

If sea levels rise, it will cause problems. If sea levels drop, it will cause problems. And history tells us it is always doing one or the other.

If sea levels rise, it will cause problems. If sea levels drop, it will cause problems. And history tells us it is always doing one or the other.

Your spot on Dean! Earth has been constantly changed since the dawn of time. Why does everyone think that it should sit stagnate now?

If sea levels rise, it will cause problems. If sea levels drop, it will cause problems. And history tells us it is always doing one or the other.

Well, that's true.

But endless floods and storm surges would be a much worse problem than walking a longer way to the beach, or drilling deeper for water. The problem is we're not aquatic, so rising sea levels mean less dry land for us to live on. (yeah, yeah, name one person you know who lives on a sampan)

If we were like our ancient ancestors, we could just pack up and leave when the water got too problematic. It's much harder now, all that infrastructure, and good land already occupied elsewhere.

Will you be ready to house flood refugees in your yard? Will anyone? Where will the people of Key West go if it floods out? Or those people in Staten Island? Will anyone give the entire nation of Bangladesh a place to live if everyone is forced to move or drown?

Yes, it's a problem, and not a trivial one.

Yes, the earth is constantly in flux.

Yes, the sea-levels are rising.

Yes, it is rising faster than predicted

Yes, we are seeing global changes at a rate not seen in the fossil record.

Yes, we will all likely live to see how the first stage of this plays out on all our shores.

I'm a professional Geologist and I approve of this message.

Mod Edit: Sorry - I had to delete portions of this post. Statements about the reasons for global warming have unfortunately become political.

I read a statistic recently that said "we're all going to die." Very troubling indeed. We as country...no...as the human race need to get serious about this now. We MUST do something before it is too late!

Mod Edit: Sorry - I had to delete this. Remember, no politics. And the mention of an ex-Vice President and reasons for global warming is bringing politics into the discussion.

If sea levels rise, it will cause problems. If sea levels drop, it will cause problems. And history tells us it is always doing one or the other.

Well, that's true.

But endless floods and storm surges would be a much worse problem than walking a longer way to the beach, or drilling deeper for water. The problem is we're not aquatic, so rising sea levels mean less dry land for us to live on. (yeah, yeah, name one person you know who lives on a sampan)

If we were like our ancient ancestors, we could just pack up and leave when the water got too problematic. It's much harder now, all that infrastructure, and good land already occupied elsewhere.

Will you be ready to house flood refugees in your yard? Will anyone? Where will the people of Key West go if it floods out? Or those people in Staten Island? Will anyone give the entire nation of Bangladesh a place to live if everyone is forced to move or drown?

Yes, it's a problem, and not a trivial one.

I have a feeling that all the present ports closed to commerce would be a pretty big deal either way.

And Dave, we're making new land over here every day.

I want to make it clear that I didn't make this post to start a controversy about GW, CC, or whatever one want's to call it. Starting off this post saying I stumbled upon the article was just for effect, so as to present the posting. Actually, the article was sent to me by a navy veteran acqaintance that served on the same ship as I (eventually) did, that was home ported at the Key West Naval Base. He served there in the 1953-1956 time period. I served in the navy from July of '67 to July of '71, but my ship was home ported in Key West starting in June of 1970, and I was there untll the 19th of July, when I got my official separation from the navy.

I have fond memories of Key West. It was a great duty station for one that liked palm trees, water sports (scuba diving, snorkling, fishing, boating, etc.). 98% of the year the weather was great. I do remember 2-3 cool days during the winter. Of course, I do remember one night in January of 1971 when the official low dropped to a bone chilling 47 degrees!

Prior to being home ported in Key West, my ship was home ported in Charleston, S.C. When the crew was told we were moving to Key West, well, we were elated! When we arrived in Key West we were welcomed with lots of signs reading "Welcoming Home." That was because my ship had been home ported there back in the late 1940s to the late 1950s (when the acqaintance I referred to above was stationed there).

My ship, the USS Howard W. Gilmore AS 16, was relieving our sister ship, USS Bushnell AS 15, that had recently suffered a devastating engine room fire (the ship was then nicknamed to the Burning Bush). The fire was so severe it was decided to retire the ship (it was eventually torpedoed and sunk off the Outer Banks of North Carolina).

I saw my first water spout in Key West. There were many of them. One actually hit our ship, of course it had no effect on it.

And like I already stated, the maintenance guys used to give us fresh coconuts when they trimmed all of the coconut trees on the base.

Another thing I liked about Key West was the atomosphere. Not literally, but just so much about the place at the time. I liked all the bars down there, and I used to frequent lots of them. The Boat Bar and the Golden Nugget (probably long gone) were two of my favorites. I remember a huge Cuban sandwich was a buck at the Boat Bar. I generally had one prior to heading back to my ship which was only blocks away.

The last time I visted Key West was in June of 1985. The navy base had been closed up since March of 1973. I think the Dept of the Interior had custody of it. They allowed the generl public to walk through it. It was like a ghost town, all boarded up, with cruise ships moored exactly where my ship used to moore. Then, years later, the base was sold to developers and condos were built. The old headquarter building was converted to a condo and still stands.

Below are two photos I got off the net. I've captioned them below each photo:

Above photo: My ship, the USS Howard W. Gilmore AS 16 (submarine tender) moored at the Key West Naval Base, adjacent to the head quarters building. The year was 1949.

Above photo: My sister ship, the USS Bushnell AS 15 moored at the Key West Naval Base, circa 1965, with the head quarter building to the left. Those coconut palms in the photo are the same ones the maintenance crew would give us coconuts from.

If any of your ever watch the 1959 Gary Grant - Tony Curtis movie Operation Petticoat, well, you can see this ship and the head quarter building in it. The setting was supposed to be some where in the South Pacific. Also, one of the local submarines, the USS Balao, was painted pink for the movie.

Mod Edit: Sorry - I had to delete this. Remember, no politics. And the mention of an ex-Vice President and reasons for global warming is bringing politics into the discussion.

No problem. I got a little carried away.

Mod Edit: Sorry - I had to delete portions of this post. Statements about the reasons for global warming have unfortunately become political.

Statements about the reasons for global warming are what we scientists call "facts". Please don't belittle my education and profession because one group or another is butt-hurt about the results of decades of research and experimentation.

It is the mentality that this subject is in any way political that undermines not only the science but the movement to do anything about it.

Mod Edit: Sorry - I had to delete portions of this post. Statements about the reasons for global warming have unfortunately become political.

Statements about the reasons for global warming are what we scientists call "facts". Please don't belittle my education and profession because one group or another is butt-hurt about the results of decades of research and experimentation.

It is the mentality that this subject is in any way political that undermines not only the science but the movement to do anything about it.

I've accepted the reality that nothing serious serious will be undertaken about global warming until the Florida keys disappear completely. So whether there is global warming or not is really a useless discussion. Only about half the people are going to listen to scientists making predictions. Only real hard undeniable evidence of the crap happening in one's backyard is going to convince the other half of people that it's actually happening. people have always divided up into two camps: the ones that want to keep things the way they used to be, and those that embrace change and/or want things to change. Those that want to keep things the way they used to be will do everything in their power to maintain that reality, whatever was reality in the 1950's.

One thing I can guarantee for sure, though: those that hang on to the status quo and have waterfront property are quickly going to become part of the "want to change" group once their house is gone - of course, that is, if all the predictions come to pass.

I like how we have been keeping temp records since the early 1900s (barley over a lifetime) and the earth has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years. Yet we KNOW why the earth is changing,how fast, and how to stop it. If science has tought us anything it's that we have no clue about weather and the earths climate cycles. First everyone said the earth was in rapid cooling and we were all going to freeze to death then it was global warming and we were all going to burn then back to global cooling then back to global warming. Now it's coined "climate change" I guess that covers all bases now doesn't it. Of course the climates changing. Look at the medieval warm period. Imaging if we were still in an ice age and the earth was warming up. Would we freak out that the ice was melting? Yet it happend, and paved the way for humans to flourish.

I like how we have been keeping temp records since the early 1900s (barley over a lifetime) and the earth has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years. Yet we KNOW why the earth is changing,how fast, and how to stop it. If science has tought us anything it's that we have no clue about weather and the earths climate cycles. First everyone said the earth was in rapid cooling and we were all going to freeze to death then it was global warming and we were all going to burn then back to global cooling then back to global warming. Now it's coined "climate change" I guess that covers all bases now doesn't it. Of course the climates changing. Look at the medieval warm period. Imaging if we were still in an ice age and the earth was warming up. Would we freak out that the ice was melting? Yet it happend, and paved the way for humans to flourish.

Right on Steve.

We can't even all agree on how to grow palms...a tangible species we see and experience everyday with our own eyes. How are we so presumptuous as humans to think we truly understand anything completely? So often we pronounce that correlation equals causation. A dangerous thing to do for a species with limited intelligence, limit technology and a very limited timeline. True scientific method requires direct observation. We haven't been around to really observe climatic changes. We can only observe the after effects. Which may or may not lead to false conclusions.

There is a firey orb at the center of our planetary system that has immense and as yet not understood impact on the climate of our home.

Our planet is far too complex a system to claim that we have an understanding dialed in. The one constant in life, and planets, is change.

At the end of the day, I believe this topic is very worthy of study and discussion. But we should be careful not to jump off the collective cliff based on conclusions from current evidence.

I like how we have been keeping temp records since the early 1900s (barley over a lifetime) and the earth has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years. Yet we KNOW why the earth is changing,how fast, and how to stop it. If science has tought us anything it's that we have no clue about weather and the earths climate cycles. First everyone said the earth was in rapid cooling and we were all going to freeze to death then it was global warming and we were all going to burn then back to global cooling then back to global warming. Now it's coined "climate change" I guess that covers all bases now doesn't it. Of course the climates changing. Look at the medieval warm period. Imaging if we were still in an ice age and the earth was warming up. Would we freak out that the ice was melting? Yet it happend, and paved the way for humans to flourish.

Right on Steve.

We can't even all agree on how to grow palms...a tangible species we see and experience everyday with our own eyes. How are we so presumptuous as humans to think we truly understand anything completely? So often we pronounce that correlation equals causation. A dangerous thing to do for a species with limited intelligence, limit technology and a very limited timeline. True scientific method requires direct observation. We haven't been around to really observe climatic changes. We can only observe the after effects. Which may or may not lead to false conclusions.

There is a firey orb at the center of our planetary system that has immense and as yet not understood impact on the climate of our home.

Our planet is far too complex a system to claim that we have an understanding dialed in. The one constant in life, and planets, is change.

At the end of the day, I believe this topic is very worthy of study and discussion. But we should be careful not to jump off the collective cliff based on conclusions from current evidence.

Hammer, you nailed it! Get it....hammer and nail......ah forget it. But very well said

Final comment for the moment...

Politics is a part of the human existence. As such it is part of the CC discussion. To claim otherwise is simply not realistic.

If we hope to address this issue effectively, we must do so through a consensus approach. BOTH sides in this discussion demonize the other. Frankly, it is disgusting too.

Until we can have a meaningful dialogue that doesn't aim to pick winners and losers, to point fingers to score points before the next election, or shout down opposing (honestly held) opposing views...this discussion is worse than pointless.

But we are humans and we simply love to be right and we love a good fight too much.

Sea Levels to Plunge Long Term, Study of Dino Era Says:

About 80 million years ago—a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth—global sea levels were roughly 560 feet (170 meters) higher than they are today, according to a new study....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080306-sea-levels.html

I live on the Lake Wales Ridge (south end) in Florida. I've read that 1 million to 3 million years ago the LWR was the only part of penisula Florida that was above sea level. As such, isolated species of fauna and flora evolved here that are found no where else. What accounted for the sea level difference then vis a vis now, I don't know, as I felt little need to delve into the reason. But I do know that man didn't exist at that time, not even close to that time. So by logical deduction, the sea level change can't be correlated to mankind. Some physical phenomena far greater than anything man has or does today caused the sea level difference of ancient times. But that being said, no doubt man has some influence on the global climate today. Just how much and/or how devastating is anyone's guess. There's no exact way to quantify it one way or the other. I tend to think nature itself plays the largest factor. But if I'm supplied with incontrovertible facts on the matter, I'm open to being mistaken.

Sea Levels to Plunge Long Term, Study of Dino Era Says:

About 80 million years ago—a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth—global sea levels were roughly 560 feet (170 meters) higher than they are today, according to a new study....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080306-sea-levels.html

I live on the Lake Wales Ridge (south end) in Florida. I've read that 1 million to 3 million years ago the LWR was the only part of penisula Florida that was above sea level. As such, isolated species of fauna and flora evolved here that are found no where else. What accounted for the sea level difference then vis a vis now, I don't know, as I felt little need to delve into the reason. But I do know that man didn't exist at that time, not even close to that time. So by logical deduction, the sea level change can't be correlated to mankind. Some physical phenomena far greater than anything man has or does today caused the sea level difference of ancient times. But that being said, no doubt man has some influence on the global climate today. Just how much and/or how devastating is anyone's guess. There's no exact way to quantify it one way or the other. I tend to think nature itself plays the largest factor. But if I'm supplied with incontrovertible facts on the matter, I'm open to being mistaken.

SoCal is much the same way. Our deserts were once huge seas. It's kind of cool when your out there hundreds of miles from the ocean and you can still find seashells.

I like how we have been keeping temp records since the early 1900s (barley over a lifetime) and the earth has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years. Yet we KNOW why the earth is changing,how fast, and how to stop it. If science has tought us anything it's that we have no clue about weather and the earths climate cycles. First everyone said the earth was in rapid cooling and we were all going to freeze to death then it was global warming and we were all going to burn then back to global cooling then back to global warming. Now it's coined "climate change" I guess that covers all bases now doesn't it. Of course the climates changing. Look at the medieval warm period. Imaging if we were still in an ice age and the earth was warming up. Would we freak out that the ice was melting? Yet it happend, and paved the way for humans to flourish.

Right on Steve.

We can't even all agree on how to grow palms...a tangible species we see and experience everyday with our own eyes. How are we so presumptuous as humans to think we truly understand anything completely? So often we pronounce that correlation equals causation. A dangerous thing to do for a species with limited intelligence, limit technology and a very limited timeline. True scientific method requires direct observation. We haven't been around to really observe climatic changes. We can only observe the after effects. Which may or may not lead to false conclusions.

There is a firey orb at the center of our planetary system that has immense and as yet not understood impact on the climate of our home.

Our planet is far too complex a system to claim that we have an understanding dialed in. The one constant in life, and planets, is change.

At the end of the day, I believe this topic is very worthy of study and discussion. But we should be careful not to jump off the collective cliff based on conclusions from current evidence.

I don't think anyone would dispute what you said. However, you're overlooking one major issue: we are currently conducting one of the biggest experiments ever undertaken: pumping massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. We know enough science to be able to conclude that this action is going to have an effect on our climate. But because the atmosphere coupled with the oceans is such an enormous complex system, we can't accurately predict exactly what the effect will be. To pretend its not going to have an effect is nothing but total denial.

Walt looks like we did to good of a job curbing global cooling in 1977. Haha

I'm totally on board for the US to reduce its carbon footprint, What I want, is for a reasonable amount of time to do it.

I'd like to see more harvesting of domestic fossil fuel (because we already own it, thus there is a big savings), and then direct a very big portion of that savings into research and development jobs for clean, renewable energy sources. I just think that would be a reasonable Quid Pro Quo in opening up more federal land for fossil fuel harvesting. I would accept certain time limits and milestones to develop said alternative energy sources, lest the domestic harvesting be cut back.

I do not want to see domestic fossil fuel harvesting so that we can just get low gasoline/diesel prices and go about our merry way, carefree driving.

I remember when I was making minimum wage ($1.25 an hour) back in 1964 as a High School school student. Gasoline was .28 cents a gallon for regular! Even with my low pay I could do a lot of driving. I don't care to see low gasoline prices like that again, as it just encourages waste and gas guzzling cars. On the other hand, I don't want to see sky high gasoline prices, nor do I want to see the gasoline rationing lines of 1973. What a bummer that was. I had a 440 cubic inch Dodge Charger and was limited to 3 gallons of gasoline every other day (odd/even license tags). I had to drive very, very judiciously, and even then couldn't get by.

It is too bad that this topic is almost impossible to discuss without bringing politics into the equation. Every time the discussion is allowed, it eventually is closed because of that. But it is obvious that there is a yearning to discuss it - on both sides. So we need to remember it is not the mention of politics that is off limits here, it is the mention of a particular political view. And just the assertion that warming is man made, or no it is not, or even if there is global warming has fallen almost completely along party lines - so clearly not purely scientific.

Economists can't even agree on the proper way to manage the economy of one country, let alone the intricacies of the global economy. Yet there are those who think we should be able to get together on a solution to global weather. If it is handled the way economies are supposedly managed, then run for cover.

Unfortunately, like the issue of global climate change, it will be the politicians who will end up making the final decisions on handling economies and global weather, not the economists and scientists. So that means the decisions will ultimately be made by those who have the most political influence.

As I hope can be seen, I am trying my best to let this discussion continue. So please remember there is a fine line between discussing the ramifications and mechanisms of changing weather, but once it drifts into who or what is responsible, and what specifically should be done about it (if anything), we begin to drift into political camps.

But I'm willing to try again.

I like how we have been keeping temp records since the early 1900s (barley over a lifetime) and the earth has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years. Yet we KNOW why the earth is changing,how fast, and how to stop it. If science has tought us anything it's that we have no clue about weather and the earths climate cycles. First everyone said the earth was in rapid cooling and we were all going to freeze to death then it was global warming and we were all going to burn then back to global cooling then back to global warming. Now it's coined "climate change" I guess that covers all bases now doesn't it. Of course the climates changing. Look at the medieval warm period. Imaging if we were still in an ice age and the earth was warming up. Would we freak out that the ice was melting? Yet it happend, and paved the way for humans to flourish.

Right on Steve.

We can't even all agree on how to grow palms...a tangible species we see and experience everyday with our own eyes. How are we so presumptuous as humans to think we truly understand anything completely? So often we pronounce that correlation equals causation. A dangerous thing to do for a species with limited intelligence, limit technology and a very limited timeline. True scientific method requires direct observation. We haven't been around to really observe climatic changes. We can only observe the after effects. Which may or may not lead to false conclusions.

There is a firey orb at the center of our planetary system that has immense and as yet not understood impact on the climate of our home.

Our planet is far too complex a system to claim that we have an understanding dialed in. The one constant in life, and planets, is change.

At the end of the day, I believe this topic is very worthy of study and discussion. But we should be careful not to jump off the collective cliff based on conclusions from current evidence.

I don't think anyone would dispute what you said. However, you're overlooking one major issue: we are currently conducting one of the biggest experiments ever undertaken: pumping massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. We know enough science to be able to conclude that this action is going to have an effect on our climate. But because the atmosphere coupled with the oceans is such an enormous complex system, we can't accurately predict exactly what the effect will be. To pretend its not going to have an effect is nothing but total denial.

my wife would probably argue that I am largely responsible for any increase in atmospheric methane!

It is too bad that this topic is almost impossible to discuss without bringing politics into the equation. Every time the discussion is allowed, it eventually is closed because of that. But it is obvious that there is a yearning to discuss it - on both sides. So we need to remember it is not the mention of politics that is off limits here, it is the mention of a particular political view. And just the assertion that warming is man made, or no it is not, or even if there is global warming, has fallen almost completely along party lines - so clearly not purely scientific.

Economists can't even agree on the proper way to manage the economy of one country, let alone the intricacies of the global economy. Yet there are those who think we should be able to get together on a solution to global weather. If it is handled the way economies are supposedly managed, then run for cover.

Unfortunately, like the issue of global climate change, it will be the politicians who will end up making the final decisions on handling economies and global weather, not the economists and scientists. So that means the decisions will ultimately be made by those who have the most political influence.

Well said Dean.

Well said Axel! I couldn't agree more. I am not a scientist, and I don't know near enough to have an intelligent discussion about climate change-I am thinking that few of us here are really qualified to really know the issues. But I do know enough not to underestimate what man made chemicals can do to the environment. We have seen example after example already in the last few decades. To underestimate it would be foolhardy, imo. There is nothing I would love more than there be no "climate change" happening. But the way I see it is on one side, you have the majority of scientists (who truly understand the problems ) saying that there is real and certain danger to the environment from man's actions, and on the other side are a lot of people who are not qualified to discuss it in depth saying "hogwash". I really don't understand how anyone can be that confident that there are no long term dangers to the environment from our actions. I don't know what they would be basing that confidence on, knowing that man made chemicals can be extremely dangerous to the environment.

Thanks Dean for keeping it open-not that we are going to solve anything here! but thanks-it needs to be discussed, and for once, I could care less about the politics. This is our home.

I'll stick to my bananas as the best climatologist I know. The winter they don't burn is the year ill take global warming as a possibility. The del mar coconut is praying for gw still.

This is what NASA is saying. There are also over 30,000 Climotologists that disagree about global warming.

28 Jul 11 - (Excerpts) - NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

Axel said it best - to expect that an unlimited amount of man made chemicals can be pumped into the global climate equation without ramifications would be irresponsible. But which ones and how much becomes the question, with no easy answers. And sometimes a cure can be worse than the disease. Because as Axel also said, we are conducting a large experiment, and any "fix" would also be experimental.

So my thinking has always centered around whether man, and man's ability and knowledge, is enough to manage global warming, anymore than it could manage a new ice age. Would some scientists be advocating the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere if we were in a global cooling predicament? And we constantly remain in the shadow of some pretty nasty natural forces that would drop this discussion off the radar quickly, and make our present contributions to the atmosphere look trivial.

If one accepts the premise that pumping man made chemicals into the atmosphere is most likely a dangerous thing to do, then wouldn't trying to slow down the pumping of chemicals into the atmosphere be a rational thing to do? I have no idea if what damage has already occurred can be reversed-but it makes sense to me to at least slow it down as much as possible in the short term and look for better alternatives in the long term. Regardless of what ever else we try, and regardless of whether or not there is a threat from elsewhere that could harm the planet-i.e a meteor etc. I assume that is what you are referring to Dean? To me, that is just muddying the waters of what we are discussing. If I am understanding your last sentence correctly

There are also over 30,000 Climotologists that disagree about global warming.

Can you cite a source for your assertion?

If one accepts the premise that pumping man made chemicals into the atmosphere is most likely a dangerous thing to do, then wouldn't trying to slow down the pumping of chemicals into the atmosphere be a rational thing to do? I have no idea if what damage has already occurred can be reversed-but it makes sense to me to at least slow it down as much as possible in the short term and look for better alternatives in the long term. Regardless of what ever else we try, and regardless of whether or not there is a threat from elsewhere that could harm the planet-i.e a meteor etc. I assume that is what you are referring to Dean? To me, that is just muddying the waters of what we are discussing. If I am understanding your last sentence correctly

Kahili - you are right if you are purely discussing what is best for Earth. In that case, no man made chemicals would probably be preferred. So that is why I stated what chemicals, and how much is the question.

I also take man's needs in the equation. Exploring space, medical break throughs, all the modern conveniences, and just a general quest for knowledge is fueled by these chemicals. And my thinking is that this "progress" has always provided answers to many of man's problems. Man is living better and longer than at any time in history. Would you want to potentially limit continued progress by making research and the manufacter of "miracle" materials and medication more difficult/expensive? I tend to think that the answer to man's problems have always been solved by this "progress."

Lest the moderator lock this thread, I will try to get it somewhat back on track.

The below photo was taking in 1970, when I was stationed at Key West. Again, it was a great place for an early 20s guy like myself to be stationed. There was a small Coast Guard facility on base just north of my ship (where it was moored), and there were lots of rickety boats that Cuban exiles would try crossing over to the US in. The Coast Guard also had a little quonset type hut bar with a pool table in it. Some of us guys would slip over there to the bar for a cool beer while we shot a game of pool (for beers) on those hot, humid tropical days. Life was good then.

And BTW, we had a guy aboard ship from Hawaii that could go bare footed right up those coconut palms. In fact, I saw him climb a very tall coconut palm on the grounds of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office in town. There used to be lots of tall coconut palms on the SO's grounds.

Above photo: The old Key West Naval Station administration building in 1970. This building wasn't razed like the rest of the base and is now a condo.

There are also over 30,000 Climotologists that disagree about global warming.

Can you cite a source for your assertion?

I misspoke over 31000 scientists not climatologists. Here's there link.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Walt looks like we did to good of a job curbing global cooling in 1977. Haha

Actually, that could actually be somewhat true, if you replace 1977 with the date when we first started to burn oil out of the ground. What if we were headed for an ice age, and thanks to pumping all the CO2 into the atmosphere, we're instead warming things up. Works for me and my palms here at 550 feet elevation, especially if my ride to the beach is going to be shorter and we get a bunch of new cool surf spots plus warmer water. Might be not so good for Floridians though.

I like how we have been keeping temp records since the early 1900s (barley over a lifetime) and the earth has been changing nonstop for over 4 billion years. Yet we KNOW why the earth is changing,how fast, and how to stop it. If science has tought us anything it's that we have no clue about weather and the earths climate cycles. First everyone said the earth was in rapid cooling and we were all going to freeze to death then it was global warming and we were all going to burn then back to global cooling then back to global warming. Now it's coined "climate change" I guess that covers all bases now doesn't it. Of course the climates changing. Look at the medieval warm period. Imaging if we were still in an ice age and the earth was warming up. Would we freak out that the ice was melting? Yet it happend, and paved the way for humans to flourish.

Right on Steve.

We can't even all agree on how to grow palms...a tangible species we see and experience everyday with our own eyes. How are we so presumptuous as humans to think we truly understand anything completely? So often we pronounce that correlation equals causation. A dangerous thing to do for a species with limited intelligence, limit technology and a very limited timeline. True scientific method requires direct observation. We haven't been around to really observe climatic changes. We can only observe the after effects. Which may or may not lead to false conclusions.

There is a firey orb at the center of our planetary system that has immense and as yet not understood impact on the climate of our home.

Our planet is far too complex a system to claim that we have an understanding dialed in. The one constant in life, and planets, is change.

At the end of the day, I believe this topic is very worthy of study and discussion. But we should be careful not to jump off the collective cliff based on conclusions from current evidence.

I don't think anyone would dispute what you said. However, you're overlooking one major issue: we are currently conducting one of the biggest experiments ever undertaken: pumping massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. We know enough science to be able to conclude that this action is going to have an effect on our climate. But because the atmosphere coupled with the oceans is such an enormous complex system, we can't accurately predict exactly what the effect will be. To pretend its not going to have an effect is nothing but total denial.

my wife would probably argue that I am largely responsible for any increase in atmospheric methane!

You and me both!

I hope nobody takes this topic to the point that they get mad at each other. It's a hard call not just for politicians but for everyone. How seriously do you take this, and what to do about it? We bought a Leaf and got solar, but I'd be lying if I said it was just because we wanted to reduce our carbon footprint. Solar is way cheaper now, and electric cars not only drive better but are essentially free - we charge ours off our solar panels. And I really don't like the giant SUVs, they're just too hard to drive and to park, and too expensive to drive.

I didn't see what was written before, but I think right now, this discussion is going swimmingly! lol There is absolutely no reason why this subject can't be discussed in a reasonable manner, and it does need to be discussed, and hopefully it becomes more acceptable that no one has or has to have all the answers in order to discuss it.

Dean-I am all for progress in quality of life, but I do believe that the health of the planet is strongly tied into our well being, and that as well-our well being is tied into other animals and plants health on this planet. I do tend to think that we should put the health of the planet high on the list when it comes to our "progress" because if our actions make this planet uninhabitable for us, or alter it in strongly negative ways, that we will really regret it. Well, maybe not us, but our kids and grandkids etc.

It is part of our genetic makeup to move forwards in whatever we take on, and I am all for that, but I think that we can slow down on emissions and still not go backwards on progress. Keep in mind though that some of what you might think of as progress in solving problems were caused by us, and our man made chemicals. Cancer comes to mind. I don't know how many of the worlds' population would agree with "living better and longer". I know that Western man is, but I also know that we use up the vast majority of the energy in order to sustain that life style. I am not sure what the effects would be to the planet if all of the world were to be privy to our type of lifestyle. I count myself as one of those that have a energy eating lifestyleso if I am passing judgement-its on me as well as anyone else. There is a lot here to consider when one uses the word "progress". So, I don't think that we have to be all or nothing when it comes to cleaning up the planet. We are smart animals-we can figure out how to live on this planet and not do ourselves in at the same time. We are already starting to take steps along that pathway. Solar and wind energy are inevitable.

I would just like to see us get past whether or not we have a problem, and start to look for solutions