What I find interesting is that the earth's warming is always isolated from the overall warming of the solar system, and the gravitational tensions between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies. There is a blue shift in white light from Andromeda, indicating that the galaxies are attracting each other nearer. This has a warming effect throughout the whole Local Group (the full and real name of a collection of galaxies and dwarf galaxies that orbit each other). I am no expert, but I have trouble believing I can prevent the inevitable collision by boycotting Styrofoam products.

Isaiah 24 is a picture of the earth's demise. The earth is in pieces, the sun is ashamed for having allowed it. And the moon is confused. The solar system will implode because earth no longer supplies its contribution to the gravitational balance. Since Andromeda is not mentioned in Isaiah, and since the collision is m(b)illions of years away, I suspect that Isaiah 24 is fulfilled prior to the collision.

Hi, Tee! Points noted, but climate has historically referred to what are norms for geographical locations from what I have encountered over the years....such as the climate, temperature and weather pattern norms for any given area is considered its climate...you expect the south to have particular temperatures and related ecological patterns and associated flora and fauna that thrive under those conditions, just as an example. What is at the core of this overarching discussion is whether or not MAN can and should do anything to alter the climate of the entire planet, or if natural phenomena outside the realm of our influence are more likely to have an influence. I opt for the natural causes having more influence, and man being charged as stewards to act responsibly when managing our natural resources. I am well aware that on a local level we can do create environmental messes that affect people's lives, and historical examples include the industrial waste that was common of cities like Chicago (been on an architectural tour there that chronicled how polluted the river was back in the day) and the smog that is even currently a problem in larger cities such as LA and Beijing. It may just be me, as a regular person, who flies and looks down on this big planet and thinks how insignificant those examples are in the bigger picture. Conversely, big, natural events are much more problematic....volcanoes erupted can indeed affect whole hemispheres, and sun activity can as well. The other thing that comes into play in my way of thinking is that very few people, in the scope of the world population as a whole, are either contributing to what is perceived as the problem, are losing sleep over it, or care about it more than they do just living day to day and making ends meet. What happens, for most of us, will happen.....on a personal level I can only do so much, and for billions of people on this planet, they have much more important things on their minds than what may (and I will absolutely continue to stick with "may", not "will") happen years into the future. And may I add, some things will always be theories, and MANMADE climate change is one such theory due to its very recent appearance on the scene and its prophetic claims.

A few thoughts on the points Jan raises:

1) Al Gore is not a scientist, nor does he claim to be. He has chosen to use his position to highlight the challenges posed by climate change. He is not the only person advocating for action on this issue - plenty of scientists are also doing so.

2) Financial benefit runs both ways. Renewable energy companies will benefit from decarbonization of the world economy. On the other hand, fossil fuel companies will benefit from the status quo.

3) Weather and climate are not the same thing (although they are related.) Weather is a short-term phenomenon. Climate is a long-term issue. The models used for climate are rigorously tested and constantly refined. Yes, there is some variation between models created by different groups, but they are close enough that they all lead to similar conclusions as to what needs to be done.

4) None of the models I have seen predicts that large parts of the world would be under water by now. It will take a long time for that to happen. The problem is that in order to prevent it, we need to start making changes right away.

5) Climate change is not a "theory" in the colloquial sense of the term. It is established science based on years of peer-reviewed research. In science, there is a high bar for something to be considered a theory - it needs substantial amounts of data to support it and needs to be rigorously reviewed by others and confirmed through repeated re-testing by independent parties.

Jan, it wasn't feigned wondering or false modesty, but a desire to learn.

1. Is Al Gore a scientist? No, he's a politician who presents himself as one who has studied the science.

2. Who benefits financially from this narrative? I honestly don't know. Someone always benefits financially, but I don't know the answer to this question.

3. Does this sound more like science or science fiction? I don't know. That's why I asked others to chime in.

4. How well do we predict weather events in real time? Hmm, about 70-80%, I would guess.

5. Why aren't we under water by now (predicted by Al)? Because he was wrong.

6. What happened to the predicted ice age? Ice ages come and go slowly, unless there is a catastrophic event.

7. How much should alarm and fear over this and theory control my life? It shouldn't, but legitimate information should move us to action in one direction or another.

Jim Walton, you are a sneaky one with the feigned wondering and false modesty. ... One does not need a degree in climatology to be informed, read conflicting opinions , come to a rationale and figure out this has little to do with the climate. I have two observations, maybe three, or more ;) .... I'll stick to questions.... Is Al Gore a scientist? Who benefits financially from this narrative? Does this sound more like science, or science fiction? How well do we predict weather events in real time? Why aren't we under water by now which was predicted ten years ago by prophet Al? What happened to the coming ice age predicted almost 40 years ago.? How much should alarm and fear over this and THEORY control my life? As a wise man once said.... It is much easier (and arrogant) to think we are saving the planet than to help our local community because the former only entails arguing, and the latter personal responsibility. It rather reminds me of old fables like Chicken Little and the blind man and the elephant.

Here's the best resource I've found: [url]http://www.climatedepot.com/[/url]

We cannot control climate change. The climate has always changed, is currently changing, and will continue to change long after we are all gone. Our planet goes through cycles of 100,000 years of glaciation followed by 10,000 years of warming. We are entering a warming phase at the moment. Life on earth has always been better when warmer. The real problem is with India and China, far and away the worst polluters of the planet. Yet they are exempt from any actions.

How afraid should we be of all the dire predictions of catastrophic climate change? Let’s look at just 10 past predictions:

1. Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

2. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

3. In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.”

4. In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.

5. In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

6. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years.

7. On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.

8. In 2009, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.

9. On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

10. And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

We can’t predict the local weather 3 days in advance. This is all a money/power-grabbing scam. We want a clean planet, so get China and India to clean up their act. But let’s not fear-monger about ridiculous doomsday scenarios.

By the way, my first indication that this was a scam is when they started calling carbon dioxide pollution instead of what it really is, plant food. When CO2 increases plants grow. When plants grow they produce more oxygen. The more plants the better.

Incidentally, when I took astronomy in the mid-80’s we were given the following assignment: Determine how these three events are related:

1. The polar caps on earth are melting.

2. The polar caps on mars are melting.

3. The planet Neptune is shining brighter.

Well, the common element is the sun going through an active phase (which it does on a regular, predictable basis.) When the sun is hotter the polar caps on earth and mars are reduced (No, it isn’t from evil humans driving SUV’s). And Neptune, which has a very reflective cloud cover, reflects more light when the sun is more active.

Much of what drives the earth’s climate cycle is the sun, our planet’s axis tilt, and our planet’s elliptical orbit. If the government wants to control the climate it needs to control those things.

Tee Lee, thanks for the clarification and comments. I read an article back in 2014 about man's involvement in global warming. It seemed carefully researched and well articulated. It asserted several facts: (1) global warming is real; (2) there is no scholarly consensus. "There are many knowledgeable meteorologists, climatologists, and other scientists who disagree that man is chiefly responsible for global warming. For instance, Dr. Arthur Robinson's petition project ([url]http://www.petitionproject.org[/url]) has about 31,500 signatures, including 9,000 signers with PhDs, who say there is no convincing scientific evidence that human influence is causing global warming; (3) Greenhouse Gases, including CO2, have increased; (4) there are natural cycles of climate change (measurable, confirmable, corroborated); (5) There is a strong bias toward the harms of global warming (some even alarmist). In reality, there are pros and cons, the most significant of which is that warming will enable most people to suffer less and live longer; (6) Computer models are selective in their analyses, extrapolated (rather than confirmed) in their projections, and exaggerated in their conclusions; (7) Claims of increasing weather disasters are uncertain. The statistics do not lead us to as certain a future as is contended. His conclusion: we need more honest scientific analyses including both sides of the argument, and not just a bias towards harm from human influence while shutting out evidence to the contrary.

Jim, there is actually very little debate within the scientific community that human activity is the main driver of global warming. Most of the debate is occurring in the political sphere and the media, drummed up by the fossil fuel industry.

You raise a valid question as to whether resources are better spent reducing carbon vs. feeding the world. However, consider the fact that the parts of the world likely to be most negatively affected by climate change are also the poorest, so feeding the world without addressing carbon is like treating a symptom without curing the disease. (My point being that we need to do both.)

Sweeney, most technology products come about because of government. Almost every scientific or technological advance since WWII can be traced to government policy or funding. I'm not saying the people wouldn't have figured them out eventually, but policy made them happen faster.

In the case of climate, carbon is largely an economic externality, so there is no direct cost driving people to respond. Policy is needed in order to bring the cost of carbon in to account so that market forces can act.

We can't wait for "sometime this century". Carbon lingers in the atmosphere for decades, so any changes we make now will take a long time for the benefits to arrive. We need to start now in order to avoid the most severe problems.

Sometime is this century, a company will come along and create a product that will have more of an impact than government regulations will. That $100 trillion can be better spent elsewhere.

Horse flop pollution was a huge problem for cities until the automobile came along and solved that problem in a short period of time.

[url]https://fee.org/.../the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/[/url]

Tee Lee, it's understandable that there are "so many gaps [you] don't know where to start." He can't possibly digest and divest a large subject in a mere few minutes. As we know, completeness and attention span are often mutually exclusive. :D

And thank you for all the input. I know a few things: (1) there is no question that the world is getting warmer; (2) there is HUGE debate as to how much of global warming is because of human behavior, or if the planet is in a warming part of its cycle. When all of humanity's combined efforts at the cost of trazillions of dollars can make only minuscule alterations, one wonders if the trazillions could be better spent feeding the world. One wonders. Which is not to say one ignores the environment and our effect upon it, but I wonder if the Paris agreement is the wisest route to benefit. These are things that are beyond my pay grade (and, of course, my eduction, which is in a completely different field).