The existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which mean temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower and Earth would be uninhabitable. Rather, the debate centers on how the strength of the greenhouse effect is changed when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases.
On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%. Some other naturally occurring gases contribute very small fractions of the greenhouse effect; one of these, nitrous oxide (N2O), is increasing in concentration owing to human activity such as agriculture. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago. "About three-quarters of the anthropogenic man-made emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation.
BUT HERE IS MY SIDE TO THE STORY!!
Global warming have been happenning since the world was born. When temperatures get too high in the world the ocean currents get disrupted and wind direction changes. Usually blowing cold air from the north in directions this way and that. And then theres an ice age. (sorry there is a better way to explain it.)
Then the world heats back up again. Yes, to admit global warming does exsist but is it like what they say?
Basically all im saying is, the world heats up, then cools back down again. In a couple hundred years time (or decades) there shall be another ice-age...
Yeah but this time the ice age will be human caused. Would you just sit back and say: Oh lets just watch the ice-age kill off humanity or do something about it? (I mean I would just sit back and watch humanity die) but cmon...
| hibbso wrote: |
Global warming have been happenning since the world was born. When temperatures get too high in the world the ocean currents get disrupted and wind direction changes. Usually blowing cold air from the north in directions this way and that. And then theres an ice age. (sorry there is a better way to explain it.)
Then the world heats back up again. Yes, to admit global warming does exsist but is it like what they say?
Basically all im saying is, the world heats up, then cools back down again. In a couple hundred years time (or decades) there shall be another ice-age... |
Global warming and cooling has been happening since the Earth was formed. However, there are two important characteristics of this current global warming episode:
1) It is caused by human activity. We have, through our own actions, created a circumstance that is going to result in the warming.
2) It is happening extremely rapidly. It is not possible to say that this will be the fastest global warming event ever, though we do know that it will mean a high temperature change occuring in a very, very short period of time.
Given these facts, we can begin to make predictions. We predict that there will be a temperature increase of X degrees occuring at Y time, and can even now predict (to a limited degree) how different areas of the world will be effected differently. This allows us to begin to make estimates of the economic and cultural impact of the warming event.
The impact will be large, and will come at a large human and monetary cost. Going back to point 1), we must now analyze whether this is a change that we want to occur. Since we have caused it, we have the power to stop, and even reverse it. If we come to the conclusion that global warming is an acceptable phenomenon, then we can carry on as normal. However, we are now understanding that global warming is not acceptable. It will cost billions or trillions of dollars, and will result in the loss of many human lives. It will also result in tremendous biodiversity losses worldwide, coinciding with the destabilization of many of the world's ecosystems.
This has happened before, and will happen again. But, the Earth has also been hit by asteroids before, and will be hit again, and survive. Would we want an asteroid to hit the Earth right now? Of course not. If we could prevent such a disaster, would we? Of course we would. Why allow unnecessary suffering to continue? We are currently in the midst of a preventable disaster. The responsible thing to do, now that we know the causes and effects of this global warming episode, is to try to stop it.very very well writ. 
this has been proven to be an existing phenomena. decades ago, it was still disputed but as of now, it is unanimous that scientists are accepting global warming. there's no doubt about it as facts keep piling. enormous research and evidence have already been shown. its now time to act:D
Global arming is accepted to be happening, but whether or not we humans are the cause is still up for debate. When you actually look at the levels of CO2 we are producing then its STILL insignificant when compared to, say, cows.
I agree that pollution is bad and if this current scare is what it takes to make people clean up and recycle etc. then it is a very good thing, but as for whether the current changes are caused by us? Not fully convinced.
The only fact that everyone can agree on is that we don't have enough conclusive evidence to prove it either way.
The argument is too politically motivated for the truth to be found - a bit like Iraq when the politicians made the 'facts' fit their version of what they wanted.
David.
| powers1983 wrote: |
Global arming is accepted to be happening, but whether or not we humans are the cause is still up for debate. When you actually look at the levels of CO2 we are producing then its STILL insignificant when compared to, say, cows.
Aren't we supposed to be in charge of this? are you saying that you're going to blame the cows for CO2 emmision? Nah, i don't think so. CO2 are just one of the greenhouse gases and in fact their contribution to the change in temperature is very minimal. Other major gases that actually are very rare but contributes much include those CFCs. sulfur and the likes. CO2 just sprout due to its number. Anyway, the point is, you cannot blame the cows or any other animals for that matter. It is us humans that should take the responsibility for this phenomena.
I agree that pollution is bad and if this current scare is what it takes to make people clean up and recycle etc. then it is a very good thing, but as for whether the current changes are caused by us? Not fully convinced.
..again same argument here
The only fact that everyone can agree on is that we don't have enough conclusive evidence to prove it either way.
Nah, this was the argument before, but as i just said, evidence are piling and it is geared toward proving that it exist.
The argument is too politically motivated for the truth to be found - a bit like Iraq when the politicians made the 'facts' fit their version of what they wanted.
David. |
| powers1983 wrote: |
| Global arming is accepted to be happening, but whether or not we humans are the cause is still up for debate. When you actually look at the levels of CO2 we are producing then its STILL insignificant when compared to, say, cows. |
Aren't we supposed to be in charge of this? are you saying that you're going to blame the cows for CO2 emmision? Nah, i don't think so. CO2 are just one of the greenhouse gases and in fact their contribution to the change in temperature is very minimal. Other major gases that actually are very rare but contributes much include those CFCs. sulfur and the likes. CO2 just sprout due to its number. Anyway, the point is, you cannot blame the cows or any other animals for that matter. It is us humans that should take the responsibility for this phenomena.
| powers1983 wrote: |
| I agree that pollution is bad and if this current scare is what it takes to make people clean up and recycle etc. then it is a very good thing, but as for whether the current changes are caused by us? Not fully convinced. |
..again same argument here
| powers1983 wrote: |
| The only fact that everyone can agree on is that we don't have enough conclusive evidence to prove it either way. |
Nah, this was the argument before, but as i just said, evidence are piling and it is geared toward proving that it exist.
| powers1983 wrote: |
The argument is too politically motivated for the truth to be found - a bit like Iraq when the politicians made the 'facts' fit their version of what they wanted.
David. |
So how DO we rank compared to Cows?
Even the amount of CO2 released by cows is attributable to human activity. The number of cows on the planet is in direct proportion to our insatiable demand for beef, and the creation of factory farms to produce faster growing, larger animals in vast quantities to feed our exponentially growing human population. Same applies to pigs and other livestock.
Sad, really.
| hibbso wrote: |
Global warming have been happenning since the world was born. When temperatures get too high in the world the ocean currents get disrupted and wind direction changes. Usually blowing cold air from the north in directions this way and that. And then theres an ice age. (sorry there is a better way to explain it.)
Then the world heats back up again. Yes, to admit global warming does exsist but is it like what they say?
Basically all im saying is, the world heats up, then cools back down again. In a couple hundred years time (or decades) there shall be another ice-age... |
Well this theory is at least partly true, but the big question is if the human race accelerates that climate change, which I think it actually does. By the way, it is definitely not bad to reduce CO2 emissions in any case.."Oh! The ozone layer is thinner from the outcome of my dinner..."
Has to be one of the best lines this year, so far...
I Am Cow by Arrogant Worms @ youtube::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=immdNYQOGt8&mode=related&search=
Yeah, this theory can be true - there were more than 50 climate changes (from cold to hot, and then hot to cold...)
Global warming might be disputed because of lack of evidence that is more concrete. Most o f these are estimated.
But then, whether the emissions kill you are kill your neighbours, you are spoiling your neighbourhoold. Mind that.
| powers1983 wrote: |
Global arming is accepted to be happening, but whether or not we humans are the cause is still up for debate. When you actually look at the levels of CO2 we are producing then its STILL insignificant when compared to, say, cows.
I agree that pollution is bad and if this current scare is what it takes to make people clean up and recycle etc. then it is a very good thing, but as for whether the current changes are caused by us? Not fully convinced.
The only fact that everyone can agree on is that we don't have enough conclusive evidence to prove it either way.
The argument is too politically motivated for the truth to be found - a bit like Iraq when the politicians made the 'facts' fit their version of what they wanted.
David. |
Well, if you want evidence, just look at the data on the polar caps. They lose ice every year! Also, humans are responsible for the CO2 of cows. Not only do humans overpopulate the cows, the also cut them up so even more CO2 is released | hibbso wrote: |
| The existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Rather, the debate centers on how the strength of the greenhouse effect is changed when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases. |
Um.
Wow.
Talk about mis-informed.
| Quote: |
| Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which mean temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower and Earth would be uninhabitable. |
HuH? Look, just because YOU think one thing, does NOT make it FACT.
| Quote: |
| Earth would be uninhabitable |
Huh?? There are people living in climates that are below freezing levels.
Research and education are key. 
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| Quote: | | Earth would be uninhabitable |
Huh?? There are people living in climates that are below freezing levels.
Research and education are key. |
So you're saying that we can live without any other plants and animals. Were did our food go? We can't eat rocks. Of course, this won't happen (plans/animals will not being completely extinct) but a lot of global warming would make food much harder to make. People should just use Wikipedia, but I guess posting is good for the health of frihost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming | nilsmo wrote: |
| Billy Hill wrote: | | Quote: | | Earth would be uninhabitable |
Huh?? There are people living in climates that are below freezing levels.
Research and education are key. |
So you're saying that we can live without any other plants and animals. Were did our food go? We can't eat rocks. Of course, this won't happen (plans/animals will not being completely extinct) but a lot of global warming would make food much harder to make. People should just use Wikipedia, but I guess posting is good for the health of frihost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming |
if you look at the temperature rise in the last few centuries, there does not seem to be any need for undue worry about warming tendencies. We are not melting the polar ice caps all by yourselves. There is the temperature cycle that the earth goes through. That should be major cause and the minor could be ours too. Whether we melt it or not it is going to. we are possibly hastening it.
The dependence on the fossil fuels should be given a rethinking however. | rshanthakumar wrote: |
| if you look at the temperature rise in the last few centuries, there does not seem to be any need for undue worry about warming tendencies. We are not melting the polar ice caps all by yourselves. There is the temperature cycle that the earth goes through. That should be major cause and the minor could be ours too. Whether we melt it or not it is going to. we are possibly hastening it. |
These two articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Global_Warming
Summarize global warming in a way described by reliable sources. Please read through them. Global warming is a featured wikipedia article and has been given a good external review, so it is good quality and a great place to start.i m quite sure global warming is a proven fact now. of course it is not true on the miniscule scale. some places are actually experiencing lower temperatures because global warming has changed things like deep ocean currents which affect global weather on the climatic level.
Its a simple fact that the time we live in is an exeption rather than the rule when talking about the climate
| nilsmo wrote: |
| So you're saying that we can live without any other plants and animals. |
Huh?
Wow, the lack of reading and comprehension in this one is epic...
Where did I say that? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Its a simple fact that the time we live in is an exeption rather than the rule when talking about the climate |
Fact?
Oh really?
Show me. Well I have noticed rather a drastic climatic changes in my country in rather a very short period of time.. I mean in the past couple of years. Rainy season seems to be shifted by couple of months... And flooding seems to take place more frequently. Summers seem longer and warmer and the period of winter has reduced by about one month
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Its a simple fact that the time we live in is an exeption rather than the rule when talking about the climate |
Fact?
Oh really?
Show me. |
Look at any temp chart (vostock ice core ect ) more cold than warm on them all, ok not proof but you can see the trend | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Billy Hill wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Its a simple fact that the time we live in is an exeption rather than the rule when talking about the climate |
Fact?
Oh really?
Show me. |
Look at any temp chart (vostock ice core ect ) more cold than warm on them all, ok not proof but you can see the trend |
Looking "at any temp chart" is not considered proof. Sorry. | Billy Hill wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Billy Hill wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Its a simple fact that the time we live in is an exeption rather than the rule when talking about the climate |
Fact?
Oh really?
Show me. |
Look at any temp chart (vostock ice core ect ) more cold than warm on them all, ok not proof but you can see the trend |
Looking "at any temp chart" is not considered proof. Sorry. |
No need to be sorry 
but as I said "ok not proof" still can you see a trend ????
The earths climate is in constant change (in spite of our best efforts to poison ourselves) that is undeniable is it not ?There is alot of fanaticism about Carbon Dioxide in particular. ...Most folks don't realize that modern air conditioning refrigerant (R134a), Methane and Water Vapor are all greenhouse gasses. ...Worse, they don't seem to realize that solar, wind and "ethanol" power cost vastly more than burning hydrocarbons.
The site here ->> http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3 <<-- Has a perspective to balance against the mainstream media.
Did you realize the natural gas companies have arranged for immunity from carbon credits? ...Oh? ...Maybe you didn't know the "Face it, coal is dirty" campaign was also financed by them. ...Maybe you also didn't know that their reclamation standards are below the requirements for coal mines. ...Despite their wide network of gas wells.
...The mainstream media has really poisoned the minds of the people of the USA. We are the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, and because people have told us it for years... ...Even conned us for donations... ...We believe that this aspect of weath is actually some sort of curse.
I applaud those who have approached this with a critical eye. ...Unfortunately, damage has already occurred from this hysteria. ...People don't realize it, but keeping an economy healthy helps people get to the doctor, get the medicines they need, and generally promotes health. ...In a slightly indirect way, electricity prices literally kill people. ...And I bet less than 1% of the people in the USA, much less the poor people who have the greatest disadvantage, have ever even considered that... I had a class in my university a few years ago where we had to debate about environmental issues and at the end of the debate, the class and the professor would vote to see who provided the most convincing argument and provided the best evidence.
I had to lead two debates, one being, "Are humans to blame for global warming?". Unfortunatly I was assigned to the side of, "NO! Humans are not to blame" and my side won.
Some of the key point/pieces of evidence my side had were:
1. The temperature of the earth was at its hottest during a period of time millions of years before the existence of man.
2. The average temperature of the earth has steadly oscilated over time from periods of high and low and correlate with highs and lows of sunspot activity on the sun.
3. In recent decades not only is the earth warming up, but so are the other planets in the solar system.
4. Volcanoes like Pinnatubo put out more CO2 than humans can in a decade and even larger volcanoes like Vesuvius released more CO2 than the entire history of man.
| driftingfe3s wrote: |
I had a class in my university a few years ago where we had to debate about environmental issues and at the end of the debate, the class and the professor would vote to see who provided the most convincing argument and provided the best evidence.
I had to lead two debates, one being, "Are humans to blame for global warming?". Unfortunatly I was assigned to the side of, "NO! Humans are not to blame" and my side won.
Some of the key point/pieces of evidence my side had were:
1. The temperature of the earth was at its hottest during a period of time millions of years before the existence of man.
2. The average temperature of the earth has steadly oscilated over time from periods of high and low and correlate with highs and lows of sunspot activity on the sun.
3. In recent decades not only is the earth warming up, but so are the other planets in the solar system.
4. Volcanoes like Pinnatubo put out more CO2 than humans can in a decade and even larger volcanoes like Vesuvius released more CO2 than the entire history of man. |
Oh, Snap! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/
With the revisions that 5 of the 10 warmest years now seem to have occurred before WWII and 1934 seems to be the new warmest, it is expected that this Anthropic Warming topic has much further to run yet.
So, not only do the AGW-ists get the physics wrong, their maths and IT skills are atrocious too.
Source:: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
| Quote: |
| "Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure." |
Another figure from that source:: "This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde and is part of the Global Warming Art project."
Last edited by newolder on Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total | newolder wrote: |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/
With the revisions that 5 of the 10 warmest years now seem to have occurred before WWII and 1934 seems to be the new warmest, it is expected that this Anthropic Warming topic has much further to run yet.
So, not only do the AGW-ists get the physics wrong, their maths and IT skills are atrocious too.
Source:: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
| Quote: | | "Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure." |
Another figure from that source::
|
So you're saying my SUV is polluting so much it's not only traveling through space (the sun and other planets), it's also traveling through time?!?!?! No, really, because to watch the news, there's no other explanation as to why we have global warming, except to blame humans.
OMG I MUST PARK MY SUV NOW!!!
1) Atmospheric CO2 has an independently demonstrated global warming effect
2) Global CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the past century
3) Most of that rise is due to human activity
4) The increase has resulted in an historically unprecedented rapid climate change
5) Models that remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings *cannot* account for the recent climate change
What's not to understand?
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
3) Most of that rise is due to human activity
|
Whoa, there cowboy. You better provide proof. I've seen plenty of
data that says otherwise. Other data that clearly says humans are
responsible for a very small percentage of that rise.
I'd say that's still up for debate.
| Quote: |
4) The increase has resulted in an historically unprecedented
rapid climate change |
Better check back in the middle ages, buddy. They had a worse rise
than we're having now. Just because Al Gore forgot to mention that in
his *cough*Documentary*cough* doesn't mean it didn't happen.
| Quote: |
5) Models that remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings
*cannot* account for the recent climate change |
Models? You mean like the models they routinely use to get the weather
wrong day after day? And those same models are somehow going to be
accurate over years and/or centuries???? ESPECIALLY after some nit-wit
stuck his dobber in there and messed with the data?!?!?!
You make me laugh. HA HA
| Quote: |
* The temperature of the earth was at its hottest during a period of
time millions of years before the existence of man.
* The average temperature of the earth has steadly oscilated over time
from periods of high and low and correlate with highs and lows of sunspot
activity on the sun.
* In recent decades not only is the earth warming up, but so are the
other planets in the solar system.
* Volcanoes like Pinnatubo put out more CO2 than humans can in a
decade and even larger volcanoes like Vesuvius released more CO2 than
the entire history of man.
* The Middle Ages hosted a Warm Trend far greater than our current
trend, which may actually be a cooling trend, depending upon your data
and how far back you look.
|
(I added that last one )
Hey, Gagnar, gag on this: A Moose BURPS more methane (2100kg of
carbon dioxide) in a year than a car produces driving 13,000 km!! Not
to mention when the Moose FARTS!
Pwnt!
| Quote: |
"An adult moose emits about 100 kilograms of methane gas a
year. But methane gas is much stronger than carbon dioxide, so to
get the equivalent you have to multiply by 21,'' professor Odd Harstad
at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences said.
With an estimated 140,000 moose roaming Norway's forests, that is a
total of of 294,000,000kg of CO2 per year. |
http://news.google.com/news?q=Moose%2Bburps%2Bmore%2Bco2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wnMoose burps and Mount Vesuvius may have emitted more co2 and methane than human activity, but there are other greenhouse gasses, and we have fewer trees to filter them out.
What percentage of the Earth was covered by forests when Vesuvius erupted, compared to the percentage of forest cover we have now? How healthy were the oceans (phytoplankton levels)? How did Vesuvius' eruption affect the global climate? How did the amount of ash and dust in the atmosphere after the eruption affect the amount of solar heat the earth received? Was it enough to offset the greenhouse affect of the co2?
There is a lot more to global warming than just co2.
Actually, I've just found the answer to my own question:
| Quote: |
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.
INFLUENCE ON THE HAZE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. It was thought for many years that the greatest volcanic contribution of the haze effect was from the suspended ash particles in the upper atmosphere that would block out solar radiation. However, these ideas changed in the 1982 after the eruption of the Mexican volcano, El Chichon. Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space. |
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
There is a lot more information on this site about how volcanic eruptions affect the climate, including a mention if the Tambora eruption of 1815 which cooled the global climate to such an extent that 1816 became known as the year without a summer. To what extent humans have caused global warming might be the question. But there cannot be any questions on the fact that we are 'polluting' and there is a huge amount of gases being spewed out by human beings every day. Whether it is harmful to other creatures or not, it has certainly proved harmful to man himself. Therefore, whether he has the inclination to save the earth and the other beings is not the question. Is he selfish enough to save himself out of the pollution that is rampant today.
Look at global warming as an excuse to set our methods right. Let us ensure that every tree cut is planted with a new tree. Let us also ensure that the pollutants let out by the cars and the industries brought down gradually and steadily. It can be done and it has to be done. That is more the need of the hour. Global warming is more macro and might be very difficult to prove without ambiguity.
Man it's not lie! In my town I feel the consequences of this. The climate here is almost desertic. Hot too. The sun almost burn the skin. 
| Liques wrote: |
| Man it's not lie! In my town I feel the consequences of this. The climate here is almost desertic. Hot too. The sun almost burn the skin. |
It is chiller in our place. These days it is getting colder here in the tropics!! 
Look at the news .. flooding in africa, major quakes almost everywhere (a bit of exageration), glacier thinning.
Global warming. Real, a conspiracy, or long run cycle. Which ever it is, the climate has changed. We have to be prepared not only for our selves, but also to help others that are right now suffering due to natural calamities and poverty.
The earth naturally warms over time, eventually leading to an Ice Age. True.
Human caused pollution is warming the earth. True.
Human caused warming != Naturally caused warming.
Ice Age = Human Caused, not natural.
As others have mentioned, the key difference between the natural cycle in climates and today's problem is that this is human caused. The earth is not going through it's normal cycle of hot-cold-hot-cold, it is being warmed by human action. Fix the human action, and we can hope to avert the Ice Age.
Moreover, whether an ice age or global warming is natural or not, it is BAD for humans. Imagine the impact of an ice age on the global food supply. Conversely, imagine the impact of melted ice caps on coastal areas.
Even if this warming is natural, it does not bode well for the long term stability of civilization. IT wouldn't be bad enough to wipe out human beings, but it would surely be enough to severely destabilize the current political situation. Therefore we should seek ways to control warming - through curtailing human pollution and controlling the natural warming of the environment.
- Walkere
| SlowWalkere wrote: |
| ... but it would surely be enough to severely destabilize the current political situation. Therefore we should seek ways to control warming - through curtailing human pollution and controlling the natural warming of the environment.- Walkere |
Agreed.
But because there are always some sector of the economy, or group of companies or some country that will benefit from global warming, it would be pretty difficult to convince every one (as you put it) to control warming (example: kyoto, us and australia).certainly the temperature of the earth fluctuates. but there is very good scientific evidence that this particular fluctuation is mainly derived from greenhouse gases, and equally good evidence that continuing emissions will only yield further warming.
i think we should engage less in a debate about whether or not the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past (it has), or whether it will continue to fluctuate in the future (it will), and focus on the fact that, if global warming, sped on by human-related emissions, continues to increase, humans have a smaller chance of leading happy and fulfilling lives.
I'm not saying that human-caused Global Warming doesn't exist, but I simply haven't seen enough information to convince me yet. The Earth is estimated to be billions of years old, so do you really think a few years of data can be convincing enough to explain the earth's climate? The problem with this is that certain scientific ideas can be popular, and with popularity comes money. I remember hearing about one wealthy person who was willing to pay 10 million dollars to anyone able to take a certain amount of co2 (can't remember exactly how much) out of the atmosphere. So many people are now trying to work on filtering systems to get undesirable pollutants out of the air. So scientists are obvious going to milk as much out of this Global Warming mania as possible. So what they tend to do is only show some of the data, and exclude other parts of the data. For instance, the average temperatures in the 1930s were actually warmer than the average temperatures today. After the 1930s, the earth began to cool and people panicked because they thought we were heading towards another ice age, and people spoke of "Global Cooling."
So to sum this up, I'm not saying that human-caused Global Warming doesn't exist, but I haven't seen enough data to be convinced. However, I am for protecting to environment and try to do my best to conserve and protect the environment any way I can. I just don't think that trying to solve a problem that we aren't 100 percent sure about is the right solution at this point.
| hilariouslicorice wrote: |
certainly the temperature of the earth fluctuates. but there is very good scientific evidence that this particular fluctuation is mainly derived from greenhouse gases, and equally good evidence that continuing emissions will only yield further warming.
i think we should engage less in a debate about whether or not the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past (it has), or whether it will continue to fluctuate in the future (it will), and focus on the fact that, if global warming, sped on by human-related emissions, continues to increase, humans have a smaller chance of leading happy and fulfilling lives. |
So are you saying that humans who lived during the Little Ice Age or even the Ice Age, were unhappy and unfulfilled, as were the humans who lived through the Medieval Warming? I'm sure those folks who lived in the Little Ice Age simply didn't know the world any other way. Some may have even resented the earth's warming, the buffalo herds leaving South Texas and going north for example, the changes in the habitats to which they were accustomed. They might look upon our climate in say, 1976 and think it horrible. Not because it is, but because that is all they know.
| SlowWalkere wrote: |
The earth naturally warms over time, eventually leading to an Ice Age. True.
Human caused pollution is warming the earth. True.
Human caused warming != Naturally caused warming.
Ice Age = Human Caused, not natural.
As others have mentioned, the key difference between the natural cycle in climates and today's problem is that this is human caused. The earth is not going through it's normal cycle of hot-cold-hot-cold, it is being warmed by human action. Fix the human action, and we can hope to avert the Ice Age.
Moreover, whether an ice age or global warming is natural or not, it is BAD for humans. Imagine the impact of an ice age on the global food supply. Conversely, imagine the impact of melted ice caps on coastal areas.
Even if this warming is natural, it does not bode well for the long term stability of civilization. IT wouldn't be bad enough to wipe out human beings, but it would surely be enough to severely destabilize the current political situation. Therefore we should seek ways to control warming - through curtailing human pollution and controlling the natural warming of the environment.
- Walkere |
With all due respect, it is these sort of ideas that just smack of arrogance to me. Everyone is so focused on stopping it whether it is natural or not. However no one seems to be making any effort to adapt to it. Instead everyone's assuming that at some point in the next 100 years or so humans will change the course of the global environmental system to suit what we in the 20th and 21st century have deemed to be the optimal climate for Earth.
Ice Age, Warming...whatever. We are all descended from the hardiest of survivors in our extremely adaptable species. Our ancestors went through the same things over the centuries as we are worried about today. Sure, if you want to try and alter the course of a planetary climate system, go ahead. But if the predictions are so dire, why not focus our attention on adapting to it, working in parallel with other efforts to change it? Focus on what you know will work instead and spend a lesser amount of time and energy on the optimistic, pie-in-the-sky hopes.
Respectfully,
MGlobal warming is happening. It is a cycle that the earth is on. I think we are unduly concerned about it.
You talk about so many things as if you 100% know them.
Whatever be the cause and effect, it is high time we control ourselves before we do something really bad. It is time to wake up even if we might not be the cause of the problem. If we are, we better correct it now.
its a truth.....it is responsible for melting of galciers...also it has affected the le of the world....water in ocean rising day by day.....low rise are getting sink day by day in ocean....main cause is green house gases e.g. CO2,CO,etc....other CFC gases....also pollution....we should control our active.otherwise it will damage our universe.....we should join our together and work to protect our nature.......
tak care
hav a gud time
regard
abhi
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
1) Atmospheric CO2 has an independently demonstrated global warming effect
2) Global CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the past century
3) Most of that rise is due to human activity
4) The increase has resulted in an historically unprecedented rapid climate change
5) Models that remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings *cannot* account for the recent climate change
What's not to understand? |
You have links or articles pertaining to prove or ratify these claims, or has the mass media clouded your judgemnet? | loonix wrote: |
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
1) Atmospheric CO2 has an independently demonstrated global warming effect
2) Global CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the past century
3) Most of that rise is due to human activity
4) The increase has resulted in an historically unprecedented rapid climate change
5) Models that remove anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings *cannot* account for the recent climate change
What's not to understand? |
You have links or articles pertaining to prove or ratify these claims, or has the mass media clouded your judgemnet? |
The only one that's truly up for debate in the science community is #3. I don't know what else you need to see for the others. There is plenty of research into this and it's easily accessible if you really want to see it (wouldn't take but a few minutes to get to credible sources on the topic that support the claims above). Not only that, but some of those are basic scientific knowledge.I disagree with hill billy.
I watched an english documentary which was supposed to show humans were not responsible for global warming.
It was found that they had deliberately falsified key data and there was correlation from the second world war that directly corresponded with industrial development (Proportional increases in temperature corresponded with industrial activity.
I was in the Falklands in 1982 which is quite close to Antartica. Its hottest temperatures are in February where it reaches 55. Back then there was no danger from the suns rays but now they have to watch weather forecasts for holes in the ozone layer which are due to drift over the islands.
Thats a BIG change.
its TRUE
Global warming might not be a problem - are you willing to bet the future of the human race on it?
I think it's a lie. I bet if someone wanted to make a move about global cooling tey would have no problem finding a case for it. In Canada ( Toronto area) the had the coldest winter and had the most snowfall on record. No warming going on there !
Global warming also means that some areas will get colder eg Britain if the Sea Currents change around it.
I was in the Falklands in 1982 which is quite close to Antartica. Its hottest temperatures are in February where it reaches 55. Back then there was no danger from the suns rays but now they have to watch weather forecasts for holes in the ozone layer which are due to drift over the islands.
Thats a BIG change and why did it happen?, those holes in the OZONE layer were not there when I was there 25 years ago.
This indicates a thinner ozone layer so saying "Global Warming Truth or Lie?" is almost the same as "Ozone layer thinning Truth or Lie?"
Do you get my point?
| czc587 wrote: |
| I think it's a lie. I bet if someone wanted to make a move about global cooling tey would have no problem finding a case for it. In Canada ( Toronto area) the had the coldest winter and had the most snowfall on record. No warming going on there ! |
Except global climate change as it's being presented currently is not based on the past year, two years, or even decade. You can't say it's a lie and your opposing argument be based on a single year. That's not how it works at all. | liljp617 wrote: |
| czc587 wrote: | | I think it's a lie. I bet if someone wanted to make a move about global cooling tey would have no problem finding a case for it. In Canada ( Toronto area) the had the coldest winter and had the most snowfall on record. No warming going on there ! |
Except global climate change as it's being presented currently is not based on the past year, two years, or even decade. You can't say it's a lie and your opposing argument be based on a single year. That's not how it works at all. |
You are correct and only pointed to one situation as an example. I guess I'd like to see someone with the same resources as the global warmers to a global cooling study to see if a compelling case can be made for cooling. I feel right now we are only getting the warming side of the argument, so I'm not sure who to believe. | czc587 wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | czc587 wrote: | | I think it's a lie. I bet if someone wanted to make a move about global cooling tey would have no problem finding a case for it. In Canada ( Toronto area) the had the coldest winter and had the most snowfall on record. No warming going on there ! |
Except global climate change as it's being presented currently is not based on the past year, two years, or even decade. You can't say it's a lie and your opposing argument be based on a single year. That's not how it works at all. |
You are correct and only pointed to one situation as an example. I guess I'd like to see someone with the same resources as the global warmers to a global cooling study to see if a compelling case can be made for cooling. I feel right now we are only getting the warming side of the argument, so I'm not sure who to believe. |
They have all the resources needed. What's stopping them?
You're getting the warming side of the argument because it's backed by huge numbers of scientific sources. And we're watching it happen. | liljp617 wrote: |
| czc587 wrote: | | I think it's a lie. I bet if someone wanted to make a move about global cooling tey would have no problem finding a case for it. In Canada ( Toronto area) the had the coldest winter and had the most snowfall on record. No warming going on there ! |
Except global climate change as it's being presented currently is not based on the past year, two years, or even decade. You can't say it's a lie and your opposing argument be based on a single year. That's not how it works at all. |
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that in fact many places WILL be getting colder as a result of "global warming". This is due to many factors such as changes in the ocean currents and such. While it is predicted that global temperatures on average will rise, it will also get colder in other places, which is why scientists prefer to use the term climate change, instead of global warming.Scientists who know what they're talking about all say it's happening, and that it's happening because of humans. Read the wikipedia article.
If we had scientific data for the last 50000 years or so we would be able to tell for sure.
However, since we do not have that, every prediction made is purely guesses. Who knows how nature itself behaves? We know of the ice ages, but do we know how the climate is in between two ice ages? No, therefore it is my belief that we have no idea if the global warming is man made or simply some mechanic in nature.
However, we should all think of how we treat nature 
According to some scientists the sun has less sunspots during the last two or three years than it should have according to the 11 year cycle of the sun. This means less energy is produced by the sun, which could in the end result in a kind of short ice-age like seen some 300 or so years ago. In that case our polution with CO2 is helping us.
The real problem is however mankind burning up the earh's resources at a dazzling speed.
| norbert1 wrote: |
According to some scientists the sun has less sunspots during the last two or three years than it should have according to the 11 year cycle of the sun. This means less energy is produced by the sun, which could in the end result in a kind of short ice-age like seen some 300 or so years ago. In that case our polution with CO2 is helping us.
The real problem is however mankind burning up the earh's resources at a dazzling speed. |
According to which scientists? If you are going to make statements like that then you should provide some references.
