I once believed it was a concoction of the human imagination... Until I read this in the papers: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/enviro_wackos/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html I love the little clock...
It's called framing a debate. The media use it all the time. Simply by asking the question, you imply that there is somthing to debate. There isn't. But the media like to have an argument because it sells ad space. Same with creationism.
Ah, global warming. The issue becomes confusing for several reasons. Among them: A. There is disagreement in the scientific community about what is causing global warming. B. The world has experienced warming and cooling trends before. Remember, the Vikings once had farms and sheep ranches in Greenland; it must have been much warmer then than it is now. Which leads to problem C . . . C. What is the Earth's "normal" temperature? We've been making accurate measurements for only a century or so. If we are at a "below-normal" temperature, then interfering with the natural climate cycle might not be wise at all. D. Everyone has a stake in whether or not the world is heating. Politicians need the publicity. Lawyers need publicity and money. Taxpayers want to know that their euros are being well-spent. And the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has fewer real scientists in it than they'd like you to think about, has made people's careers by making the environment their top priority. Now, this does not mean they are wrong. It does mean that they are more likely to take neutral information and twist it so that global warming sounds more dangerous than it is. E. Last, there are numerous countries that will continue industrializing no matter what. Are you going to tell China to slow down, and make your words stick? Having said all that, I may have already tread on some folks' toes, and I hereby apologise. But if global warming were a major problem in the near future, and if I had infinite money and resources, this is what I would do as a moderately informed layperson: I would spend money to find out which areas of the world will suffer most, and treat those areas first. Europe has the North Atlantic Conveyor to worry about; I want to know precisely how the NAC will be affected by warming. I would get a lot of iron and prepare to spread it in the open ocean. If you want the details of why it would work, send me a Private Message; it will take too long to explain here. But the end result would be reduced CO2 levels. The only problem: we would not be able to recover the CO2 once it was used. Finally, I would set up a large number of nuclear reactors. There are people who have been told that these are evil and dangerous. Google "hormesis cancer radiation reduce" to see why this biology major isn't falling for it. Surely there are other steps. Come to think of it, if the interested Members here were to come up with an idea for reducing global warming, we could send the answers to our various forms of governments and rest happy in the knowledge that we've helped the world.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. You are one naive man, lol. You live in Australia. If you lived in England, it would be a whole another story; cause you would see it first hand.
hey, look at it in another pespective... Maybe it IS a roose but if we had not believed in the lie, how much air pollution would be choking us each morning? how many more people would have contracted a variety of different lung diseases?
Global warming is real. Global warming sucks. Global warming should be ACTED UPON! And even if you don't think it exists, is that an excuse for you to throw bushels of paper in the trash, hop into your SUV, and drive off to buy a nice big pack of aerosol cans? NO! Even if you don't believe in global warming, you should act in the best way possible to stop it!
This site is very liberal. What did you guys think of Chrichton's State of Fear. I bet you were all gushing with praise and adulation.
The air does need to be cleaned up, no question. All the chemicals that go into it are killing us. Look at the smog covering all of the major cities. As for global warming, I'm not as concerned about it. Sure lets keep an eye on it and use try to emit less greenhouse gases. But Cows emit about 15% of the greenhouse gases produced each year. And as HeinleinFan said, Earth's temperature fluctuates fairly regularly. Also to add credence to the idea that the warming trend may be natural, Mar's ice caps are shrinking rapidly right now. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html That's my two cents.
I wonder if anyone has read this article, and what you think about geoengineering as a means to help remedy the global warming problem?
I don't know if I'm resurrecting a dead thread but, I know plenty about climatology, as that is this years Acaded Super Quiz topic. In the past century, the average global temperature of the earth has risen .6 +or- .2 degrees celcius. This might seem like a nearly worthless gain, but when compared to the volstok ice cores in antarctica, it becomes clear that this is the fastest rise in temperature ever. We are in the Holocene Interglacial currently, which has never deviated more than .01% in it's average temperature. The problem is, of course, is that scientists don't know what has caused this change. period. The fastest computer simulations can perform Billions of calculations per microsecond, and even then it would take about a year to figure out what might happen 5 years from now. After that, the model just isn't accurate enough. However, based on previous data, it would seem that the climate is heading towards an emian type climate(you don't want to know what that it. Baaad news for the human race). Either way, it is in out best interests to learn how to moderate our own climate. The good news is that the algeal blooms that would result from an emian-type climate would also suck almost all of the carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Then again, it would also kill most marine life. Very tricky situation. We would do well to keep our phytoplankton friends happy. That would most likely save our sorry buts! -Resident Mexican
Global Warming: There is strong evidence that the earth is warming slightly. The question is, what, if anything, has man done to contribute? If one is old enough remember, in the 1970s it was the threat of a new iceage that was all the rage. As was stated in an earlier post, the earth warms and cools. One of the main "greenhouse" gasses is water vapor. Not much that man can do about that. That leaves the final 20 percent. But in the calculations that many use, they ignore the 80% water, thus increasing the "impact" of man's industrialization. Certainly skews the impact of man. It is also being reported that Mars is warming too. Could it have anything to do with the sun? Studies which observe the light reflected off the moon also indcate a minor increase in the sun's intensity. But then again, you will find scientists that will argue the other side. I also remember 25 years ago, people claiming that we'd be overpopulated such that everyone would be scrambling for food, and basically starving. Read all you can, from reputable sources. Find out who is funding those sources, just to get a better idea if there is any bias, and then make your own decision. I for one believe that the earth is warming a bit. Man has very little if any impact on that. Will some suffer due to the disruption in what has been "normal" in the recent past? Very much so. Terry
Since it's inception, the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles every 10 million or so years. This is due to orbital variations brought on by the gravitational effects from Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. No problem there. What you don't realize, TWErvin, is that the earth would be 2* celcius colder than it is now were it not for the effect of man. Coinciding with the inception of agriculture, mankind has actually staved off a global cooling trend, another Ice Age. This would have been fine had we remained an agrarian society, but the industrialization of humanity really screwed things up. This is because if a few farmers can stave off an Ice age with the realeased carbon Dioxide from deforestation and methane from the flooding of southeast asia, just think of what 200 years of spewing carbon Monoxide into the atmosphere at the rate of 50 parts per million a year. Just think about it. I agree. Did you know that the 1980's was the hottest recorded decade in existence. It's pretty funny how newer information invalidates older information, but that's how science works. Keep in mind there were no climate computer models in the 1970's. The whole "ice age" concept was based on astronomical data, and guess what? We would be in an Ice Age if Agriculture had never happened! Sorry to say this, but where do you get the "main", part? Carbon Dioxide and Methane warm the earth at exactly the same rate as Water Vapor. There is more water vapor, true, but 99.9% percent of that water vapor is trapped in clouds, which reflected sunlight back into space the last time I checked. See above. It has to do with the dramatic shift in Mars's poles that occur every 23,000 years. The sun is increasing in intensity all the time. As it uses up fuel, it get's brighter. I learned that in chemistry class in high school. The effect on earths atmosphere is marginal. Funny you should say that. It has nothing to do with the debate, but it would be chemically impossible to produce the amount of food we currently have if not for the invention of nitroglycerate-based fertilizer. That's exactly the same chemical that was used in WWII to produce bombs, by the way. We would be starving if we stuck with horses and plows. I agree. Well, if we were following the "normal" scheme of climate scheduling, we would be in an Ice-Age right now. Thank the invention of Agriculture for that. It is commonly believed that Man has caused gloabal warming, that much is sure. Sadly, due to the lack of knowledge in the infant field of climatology, the scientists have no idea of Just How Much the earth will be affected. Some models even predict another ice-age. Not because of orbital variations, though, but through a shutdown of the North Atlantic Current. Those poor brits... -Resident Mexican
Well I live in Australia, and aside from getting hotter in winter and more humid in summer, we are now in high level water restrictions, to the point where kids playing under a sprinkler is considered a sin. It wasn't like this ten years ago. I think global warming is pretty conclusive.
There's little proof for man's part in the rise in temperature. Hardly any, in fact. The world is getting hotter, or the ice caps are melting doesn't prove man's guilt, it just shows something is happening. cacafire, the diluting of the North Atlantic Current has nothing to do with man, or his industries.
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/01/if-you-dont-do-anything-else-today.html Just something for people to check out. It will take some time to watch. Not sure if I agree with all of it. But it raises some interesting questions.
Global warming is out there, and humans are to blame. As if a giant honking report that says it's our fault isn't proof.
Ok, this story is a little gross, but true, and trust me it does have to do with the whole debate. I had a neighbor who was a less than stellar housekeeper and therefor had a serious cockroach problem. A few months back they haul her out in an ambulance for carbon dioxide poisoning. It seems that when cockroaches mate they give off a small puff of carbon dioxide (a little heavy breathing anyone?). So how much carbon dioxide can the average horny bug give off? Not much but when you consider that there were A LOT cockroaches in every nook and cranny of her house... In case you missed it, here's the tie-in. There was a closed system (house=planet) with a bunch of tiny little creatures (bugs=humans) that got so prolific that they were in every room (room=continent) taken by themselves they were harmless but in mass they had the power to profoundly affect their environment. Did the C02 level fluctuate normally? Without a doubt. But to say the cockroaches had nothing to do with it is naive. By the way the post-script of this story is the house got bug bombed until the problem was solved. Cosmic message anyone?
I agree...... Al Gore and some British dude are giving away 25 million to some one that can solve the global warming problem.....A device that takes the carbon dioxide stright out of the air...... alot of money
Heres an interesting video from Britain. The Great Global Warming Swindle Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S1DujZ8P98&mode=related&search= Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whwgq3Y59WE&mode=related&search= Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyj5oX83PlA&mode=related&search= Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HA_omTEx-Q&mode=related&search= Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvvSp2CAnQ&mode=related&search= Part 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Di4DxHG4c&mode=related&search= Finally Part 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlvBnLa7r2I&mode=related&search= Watch it. Even if you don't agree with it, it helps clarify the stance of the global warming skeptics. Its at least as valuable as watching "An Inconvenient Truth", if you want to see both sides of the argument.
