Is global warming really happening?
I really don't know what to believe. Many environmentalist said that we are in big trouble because of global waring, and some said that global warming is just a nonsence that creates panic. Some environmentalists said rise of temperature is because of that we are in time interval that temperature is higher than other interval. Research provided the data saying it happened before many times and there are nothing to worry about. And some said temperature is not increasing but decreasing. And of course, there are people who talk about global warming as end of the world. I know that we should worry about environment and pollusion of the air and water, but I don't believe in global warming theory. I think whatever we do in this world, nature will take care of it somehow. Mother nature is powerful and we don't understand not even just little part of it. And we talk about end of the world and destroying the earth. It might be selfish answer but let the mother nature worry about the problem, and live you life. If there are really a global warming, we can't stop it, unless we destroy everyting we created in past 200 years and live like our ancesters. Or, develope a new technology to prevent the problem. But I don't think that is going to solve the problem. As long as we humans live in this world, there will be some problem, and I think that is what it suppose to be. In this universe far as we understands it, noting can be "created or destroyed", so whatever we do, it will not destroy anything. Of course nuclear weapons or anyother deadly weapons are not the topic here and that will destroy the environment we are living in.
So, I don't believe in global warming and I don't worry about it. What do you think? do you think it exist?
Don't you mean, Does global warming really exist?
Thank you for the correction. ^^
English is not my native language so, it is little hard for me
I don't know. Like you, I also depend on our accurate environmentalists to prove or disprove the existence of global warming. Unlike you, I don't worry to much about it. If there's no global warming, then good. If there is, I'll be long dead before various problems start occurring.
I think that there is more than enough evidence for global warming. But as some mentioned, we will never have to live through its effects. Our children might. But we won't.
The fact of the matter is that whether there is or there isn't, the state that the world is in has rapidly deteriorated over the past 100 or so years.
Also, global warming is caused directly by countries such as the United States, European countries, and Japan. But they will be the last to feel its effects. In fact, countries in Asia, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, China (which has only recently started contributing to global warming) will be the first to feel the effects and will be long be submerged in water and completely nonexistent by the time the United States even begins to feel the impact.
Also, the industrialized nations of today may be able to afford solutions to the problems they may encounter as a result of the warming. They can afford to do whatever is necessary. Other countries can't.
It's a sad state the world is in.
What evidence exactly are you talking about? All I know is about Ozon layer is getting thin every year, and temperature is rising.
And what I know is that, problem created by cars or factories in industrialized nations are lower than green house gas created by airplanes and millitary aircrafts.
If we really want to lower the green house gas production, we have to think about that area as well
Actually, we are seeing the affects of global warming today. Ice caps melting, etc. But also there has been a tremedous increase in respiratory diseases such as asthma which is directly linked to pollution and too much CO2 gas in the atmosphere .
Most of the evidence suggests that the South Pole is gaining ice. It has calved off some big chunks around the coast recently. That is what happens when you add the weight of ice in the center of the continent and the movement of the glacers accelerates.
I happen to think that global warming if it happens is going to be a good thing. Where is the evidence that suggests that the earth's average tempurature for the past couple of hundred years was ideal? When you look back through the fossil record the earth has been at its most biologically prolific during warm periods. I say bring on the heat. We could use some of it here in Wyoming.
I think the evidence that the earth has warmed slightly in the last century is pretty hard to argue with. The real controversy is whether or not it was caused by humans or is part of nature. Personally I think it has a lot to do with the strength of the sun.
I have little confidence in the scientists that are dishing this stuff out and I have no trust in their climate models. Two years in a row we have been promised above average or severe hurricane seasons and two years in a row they could not have been more wrong. If their models can't predict accurately the weather events three months in advance why is there any reason to believe that their models can predict farther into the future.
Its all hocus pocus and it is mainly about stirring up public fear to keep the grant money flowing.
Let's see. The ice caps are melting, so I believe in this. It's common sense. You destroy the ozone layer, then the sun's rays can enter and melt the ice, eventualy drowning us
Couldn't it be part of circle? ozone layer is getting thin and temperature is increasing. But it could be fixed by mother nature. We just don't know how. Let's see. Se are destroying ozone layer, and sun's rays are increasing water temperature and normal room temperature, and melting ice caps in northern and southern globe. And those melted ice lowers ocean temperature, and that creates huricanes and tornados because of lower temperature in water and high temperature in air creates a storm. And those storms take care of green house gases, and more storms, better effect on nature. Maybe not for us, but good for the nature.
So, couldn't we say, it is part of nature's cycle?
Well, thats what I think at least
Regarding the ozone layer, it was being destroyed by the aerosols and such that have since been outlawed. The ozone layer is now healthier than it has been in years.
Global warming isn't caused only by a weakened ozone layer allowing the sun's rays in, however. It is caused by a thicker (i.e., polluted) atmosphere that traps reflected sunlight. The world's largest reflectors of sunlight are the glaciers and icebergs of Greenland, the Arctic and the Antarctic. As they disappear, their reflective power disappears as well. Some 90% of sunlight that hits the glaciers is reflected back out of our atmosphere, thus keeping the earth from overheating. If the glaciers melt away, that sunlight will then be ABSORBED by the oceans that take the place of those glaciers and icebergs, thus heating up the earth. Hence, global warming.
Even worse, studies have shown that plankton cannot survive in warmer oceans. If the plankton die, the fish that feed off plankton will die off as well. The entire oceanic ecosystem could be in for a shock. The ocean's ability to process CO2 will slow as well (the oceans process far more CO2 than all the vegetation in the world combined), leaving even more CO2 in the air.
Just as we saved the ozone, we can act on GW problems. We only need leadership that is committed to do so.
Kenny
Dear god...
I cant believe there is still an argument over this. Global Warming refers to the warming of the earths temperature, which has been measured and has increased over the last 50 years, during the same time that fossil fuel use exploded. The cause, although unknown, is irrelevant. The fact remains the temperature is rising, and greenhouse gases are causing/accelerating the effect. Do you know how nature takes care of itself? It kills 80% of all life on earth, thats how. First thing to go will be the phytoplankton - small, chloroplast laden cells that form the base of the food chain and are especially vulnerable to temperature change- which produce approximately 80% of all the oxygen supply in our atmosphere. How would it feel to be breathing as though you were higher than mount Everest? Its not a good feeling.
Concerning the speed of global warming, think of it as a boat tipping over. It slowly starts to go, then suddenly capsizes. The ocean is absorbing most of the 'waste CO2' that we produce, which is why we havent seen drastic effects yet. However, the ocean can only hold so much, and when it gets saturated enough (or to the point that the PH changes enough to do widespread damage to marine life) then BAM. *Brings up another point, do you think its a coincidence that the last hurricane season was so vicious it was the first time they used up all the letters in the alphabet?*
As for your morose attitude about 'its not my problem, and I dont see a solution', look at the forum your posting this on!!! This is not the forum for 'someone else will solve my problems', this is a forum for 'i'm going to contribute to society and not place my faith in some invisible entity that makes everything alright for me'.
www.biodiesel.com
www.eere.energy.gov
www.esd.ornl.gov
if your still worrying about how the earth will end:
www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
First of all, thank you for your comment and I understand what you are saying.
Second of all, I did not post my blog because I want other people to solve this 'Global Warming' thing, but I try to understand what is ACTUALLY going on. Yes, temperature is rising and greenhouse gas is damaging ozone layer. My question is it happened before!!! for many time intervals, temperature increased and decreased. I remember from one study I read, showed that we are in interval of rising temperature, and it will last about 20~30 more years. Greenhouse gas is accelerating the process and yes, we have to reduce the greenhouse gas we produce. I did not say anything about not take care of our environment or let the people destroy the world. All I said was IS IT REALLY EXIST!!! Thats all I wanted to know from other people's mouth.
I see your point and I think you for that. But don't misjudge my intention and how I feel about the issue.
I posted my opinion because I wanted to see other people's view.
Yeah, well. Are you really sure that global warming is something new? The Earth has been here for a long, long time, and global warming may as well be another phase the Earth will get over by itself. I don't really know enough science to back up my opinion, so I won't say for a fact.
Try reading less materials by the liberals. It's always good to keep an open mind. It also never hurts to be less of a prig.
The debate over global warming isn't so much a discussion about a "natural phase" as it is a discussion about an unnatural warming caused by man-made changes to the environment. Nature can be changed by outside influences. Take a meteor, for example: if a large one should crash into the earth, the resultant explosion, firestorm and cloud cover would dwarf anything like the largest volcano blasts of our time. That could literally blot out the sun for years, leading to a forced ice age that nature would've otherwise not gone through.
Mankind's production of so much carbon pollution is well beyond the typical, natural occurrences like forest fires. Changing that natural balance may and most likely WILL have consequences. Melting the ice caps is a consequence, which leads to other consequences.
We corrected our unnatural destruction of the ozone layer. Let's hope we can roll back global warming before the consequences become catastrophic.
Kenny
I'm not really sure about this either. My dad thinks its a bunch of crap, but then I see all those glaciers melting. When you think about it though, they say that the earth's temperature is rising. It doesn't seem like its rising to me, considering every year it seems to get colder and colder here. I guess only the scientists know right? They say in like 100 years or some large number that basically florida, new orleans, and new york (city area), will be under water because the ocean is going to rise some amount of feet.
As I sad before, I think we are at interval of rising temperature, and it differ in many regions. Last winter, Japan got 14 fts of snow and here in Virginia we didn't even see the snow.
And I don't think scientists know the answer either. Its all theories and nothing have been FULLY proven
Hello, I am a Buddhist monk from Australia. I would just like to say that I was glad to read Positrons' reply (05/06) as I was getting more and more worried about the way people were thinking about this global problem. I can say that in just the last 4 years of living in the Perth bush land I have noticed a decrease in hot weather and longer winters but with less rain. I am not a scientist of weather but I have lived in a small hut with not electricity for many years and as such have very little else to watch (except my breath). I am currently in our city centre, just in case you are wondering how I am typing this. I guess my only sollution to this would be to ask everyone to simplify thier lives, consume less and hopfully we can avert major damage to the world. According to my beliefs we all have to come back here next time! It would be nice to have some where to live that isn't messed up. Oh! and if you don't belive in rebirth then you may have made a lucky throw of the dice and can R.I.P when you die, but then again?
with much metta(loving kindness)
Ajita
Yes, that is the way to reduce probem, but not to sove it. I think we have to do everything to protect nature and undo what we did to the nature, but I don't think nature is that weak and since you are buddhist, I think you'll understand what I try to say.
I would suggest thst you read and educate yourself further. Maybe start with the Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. The scientific debate is over
and the even now most of the business community agrees. The major oil companies funded the "seeds of doubt" campaign started years ago. The sooner we face the truth the sooner we can start to take action.
Why is Canada spending almost as much on new icebreaking ships for it’s "melting" arctic as it is spending on Kyoto?
Canada’s Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota USA just over 300 years ago. (called Yellow Bears due to the summer coats they retained longer but still the same bear)
The Union of Concerned Scientists is comprised almost entirely of concerned citizens, not scientists at all. They took my money with no questions asked besides; “Will that be credit card or check
Hey Guest and others. There may be a great deal of misunderstanding going on here. The thermodynamic issues are not that hard to grasp, and on some points, there is no disagreement at all. In all of the different factions of oil, money, science and seat of the pants theories, apply some reason and logic, and with time, truth will reveal itself.
If I am about to get on an airplane, and 100 mechanics rush forth and tell me that this plane needs some change in maintenance or it will soon crash, and one mechanic walks out, an employee on the corporate payroll and tells me it’s safe to fly, I will be pretty darn careful before I get on that plane—which in our case—is spaceship earth.
Here are some things for your consideration and all are easy to search and verify using internet search engines.
1.CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses. Our planet is comfortable and hospitable to terrestrial because of the natural greenhouse effect. Both the broad consensus of scientists and the very tiny minority of global warming skeptics agree on this 100%.
2.The level of greenhouse gasses is rising due to the human consumption of fossil fuel that is burned after being pumped and lifted to the surface from under the ground. CO2 as measured by direct air sampling and the use of air pulled from very deep ice cores all shows that the atmosphere is changing. All agreement at 100%
3.The overwhelming majority of scientists analyze the evidence to the result that climate (very long term weather averages) is warming, and is also showing various changes that are being forced by human activities. The tiny minority of scientists argues that the increased heat (energy content) of the atmosphere will bring about more water vapor that will become clouds and it will offset the warming. Evidence, that you can get from NASA and from UCAR and IPCC documents suggests very strongly that the change is under way and is likely to be detrimental to human well being in a areas of food production and long term, release of methane hydrates in the deep cold ocean and permafrost when it warms and melts.
4.The ocean's time lag in heating to new equilibrium points means that there is a built in delay from the time of adding CO2 to the air to the time effects are born in ocean and air currents that influence climate. The delay, estimated using the most simple of math, can be several decades to well over fifty years. One time skeptic, Tim Barnett of Scripps at UCSD, published data that reflects the evidence of human induced changes in ocean temperatures.
5.The changes are happening now in statistically significant ways, and the science is getting much better at predicting climate events. Climate Change of human engineered forcing can be verified yourself by spending some time on the internet, being careful to evaluate the material for bias and errors in reasoning.
6.You will find several web sites that, upon close inspection, are funded by Coal and Oil companies--you will see some facts intermixed with some of the most odd mix of cherry picked assertions and claims. In contrast, legitimate science is more subdued and based on broadly derived evidence.
7.Some of the skeptics make odd claims. For example, take Patrick Michaels, who claims "solar power is a failure" (he makes this claim on his interview on the "Berkeley Groks" internet radio show). Solar power is great for heating water and home space passively at no cost--which brings the point that the whole CO2 emission reductions are very possible with no real disruption in living comfort or reasonable nutrition for population.
8.I've spent some time researching the details, and find in the Scientific Community, there is little or no controversy about some of the basics. What the discussion is about amounts to figuring out the exact way and structure bubbles are going to make in a pot of boiling water. As an analogy, the whole room agrees that water boils at a givent temperature and pressure, but good luck describing the event down to the last detail...
9.All of us who are alive now have a role in the collective results of humanity, and more than one of the previous posts leaves me with some degree of worry that moneyed interests with virtually unlimited resources have swayed public opinion to feel the science is not well footed. If anything, we have wishful thinking that we can continue businesss as usual--with some phase out of old technology and phase in of better energy technology, we stand a much better chance to live well and prosper.
Hey Guest and others. There may be a great deal of misunderstanding going on here. The thermodynamic issues are not that hard to grasp, and on some points, there is no disagreement at all. In all of the different factions of oil, money, science and seat of the pants theories.
1.CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses. Our planet it comfortable and hospitable to terrestrial because of the natural greenhouse effect. This is agreed upon by both the broad consensus of scientists and the very tiny minority of global warming sceptics.
2.The level of greenhouse gasses is rising due to the human consumption of fossil fuel that is burned after being pumped and lifted to the surface from under the ground. CO2 as measured by direct air sampling and the use of air pulled from very deep ice cores all shows that the atmosphere is changing.
3.The overwhelming majority of scientists analyze the evidence to the result that climate (very long term weather averages) is warming, and is also showing various changes that are being forced by human activities. The tiny minority of scientists argues that the increased heat (energy content) of the atmosphere will bring about more water vapor that will become clouds and it will offset the warming. Evidence, that you can get from NASA and from UCAR and IPCC documents suggests very strongly that the change is under way and is likely to be detrimental to human well being.
4.The ocean's time lag in heating to new equilibrium points means that there is a built in delay from the time of adding CO2 to the air to the time effects are born in ocean and air currents that influence climate. The delay, estimated using the most simple of math, can be several decades to well over fifty years. One time sceptic, Tim Barnett of Scripps at UCSD, published data that reflects the evidence of human induced changes in ocean temperatures.
5.The changes are happening now in statistically significant ways, and the science is getting much better at predicting climate events. Climage Change of human engineered forcing can be verified yourself by spending some time on the internet, being careful to evaluate the material for bias and errors in reasoning.
6.You will find several web sites that, upon close inspection, are funded by Coal and Oil companies--you will see some facts intermixed with some of the most odd mix of cherry picked assertions and claims. In contrast, legitimate science is more subdued and based on broadly derived evidence.
7.Some of the skeptics make odd claims. For example, take Patrick Michaels, who claims "solar power is a failure" (he makes this claim on his interview on the "Berkeley Groks" internet radio show). Solar power is great for heating water and home space passively at no cost--which brings the point that the whole CO2 emission reductions are very possible with no real disruption in living comfort or reasonable nutrition for population.
8.I've spent some time researching the details, and find in the Scientific Community, there is little or no controversy about some of the basics. What the discussion is about amounts to figuring out the exact way and structure bubbles are going to make in a pot of boiling water. As an analogy, the whole room agrees that water boils at a given temperature and pressure, but good luck describing the event down to the last detail...
9.All of us who are alive now have a role in the collective results of humanity, and more than one of the previous posts leaves me with some degree of worry that moneyed interests with virtually unlimited resources have swayed public opinion to feel the science is not well footed. If anything, we have wishful thinking that we can continue business as usual--with some phase out of old technology and phase in of better energy technology, we stand a much better chance to live well and prosper.
10.I began my quest just trying to figure out the ocean currents and patterns of movement when I was in high school. When in college, I learned about the unique energy and phase state change properties of water. When I learned that greenhouse gasses, as the result of human oil consumption were increasing, I took great care to investigate the issues. If you add a component that changes energy retention in the atmosphere in a significant way, at some point an upper limit will be reached and the system will change. In the case of climate, it will move to a new phase and energy relationship level.
Invest the time, keep an open mind, and find out for your self.
Perhaps listen to prof Lindzen
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/158/4489/2006-04-12.asp?wid=158&nid=4489
A few quotes:
"...To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming...."
"...So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. ....
Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
...
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."
end quote
So the realists also known as skeptics are smothered and character-murdered. What remains is alarm, the more funding the more alarm etc.
Richard Lindzen recieved a new award in Sweden, the Leo prize:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-2157837,00.html
"Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will this week receive in Sweden the Leo prize for independent thinking. He stands out against what he describes as “climate change alarmism
Andre,
Thank you for posting that outstanding comment from Richard Lindzen.
Those interested in other balanced discussions from climate realists might care to consult one or other of the two following websites:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm
Cathy
Here, for those with the drive and energy to visit, here is a point by point take down of all the Lindzen arguments alluded to in his Wall Street Journal article. Nicely done but make the head hurt...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
About Lindzen... He is one of the few skeptics with real scientific credentials. However, his thinking is dated and old, and he is surrounded by dirty money from coal and power. And, of no real consequence, one of his students wrote that he is a bit pompous and hard to listen to. You can read aboutLindzen's science up on the NASA site as the "IRIS hypothesis", and you can see his theories trounced by critics on the same site.
Decide for your self.... But be very careful when you are seeing the work the CATO institute or Western Fuels association in disguise.
For a well-reasoned, moderate discussion, see "An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical, and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy" at http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/ISA_Climate_Change.pdf.
E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman, Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
About Lindzen: as a logic professor, I would expect all my logic students, by the end of their first week of class, to recognize immediately the fallacies in the post "About Lindzen . . . He is one": "dated and old" is argumentum ab annis (appeal to age); "surrounded by dirty money" is argumentum ad hominem abusive and argumentum ad hominem circumstantial; "a bit pompous and hard to listen to" is argumentum ad hominem abusive; "very careful when you are seeing the work the CATO institute or Western Fuels association" is guilt by association. All of these are informal fallacies.
Additionally, the claim that Lindzen is "one of the few skeptics with real scientific credentials" is simply false, as one can learn by visiting http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ and http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 and http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm. The popular notion that there is a "consensus" among scientists that global warming is not only real (which hardly anyone contests) but is mainly human-induced and will be catastrophic (which many do contest) is itself almost certainly false, as one may see by visiting http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm and http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm, which not only show that the majority of scientists with qualifications relevant to climate change probably goes to the catastrophe skeptics rather than the catastrophe alarmists, but also remind us that science, unlike politics, is not about consensus but about evidence and explanation.
There are many reasons why the general public is unaware of the large, perhaps majority, proportion of topic-qualified scientists skeptical of alarm about human-induced global warming. One is a simple rule of thumb for journalists: bad news is good news, good news is no news. For whatever psychological reason, human beings' interest seems more aroused by alarming than assuring stories. Since print and broadcast news need high viewer numbers to sell advertising, and they need advertising to pay their bills and make profits, they quite naturally emphasize bad news more than good. Another reason has only become clear to me in the past few months. After reading a quotation from me in the New York Times, Dr. Neil Frank, a Ph.D.'d climatologist, former director of the U.S. National Hurricane Center, and now a network-affiliate chief meteorologist, called to tell me I was dead right to deny that the current global warming was either significantly human-induced or likely to be catastrophic or to cause an increase in hurricanes. He went on to say, "And don't let anybody intimidate you by claiming that there's a consensus among climatologists and meteorologists about this. There isn't. The profession is loaded with people who reject that notion. But most of us can't speak publicly about it because we're on contracts either with the government or with news networks that prohibit it."
E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman, Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, www.interfaithstewardship.org.
lol!
I, myself, am blown away that you put the link to IFS on the bottom of your post. As a logic professor (I profess logic???), let me be the first to point out that logic has not been the churches strong point, historically speaking.
1) The earth's position in the universe
2) The world's starting time
3) Views about other religions/creeds/races
4) Evolution
5) Etc.
Seriously, put some better credentials up there if you expect people to believe you.
Hey, E. Calvin. I read the pdf at the link you provided.
E.Calvin Beisner. Please clarify this.
As per the quote attributed to you below, are you invoking the Bible to justify doing nothing about anthropogenic carbon increasing in the atmosphere--when we can adopt solar power, more energy efficiency in transportation, and eliminate the use of oil and coal by using a combination of alternative non carbon energy sources?
Belief and faith are fine and to be found in an honest imagination of the heart--but this honesty is hard to come by... Prayer and mediation works for me... And my argument for stewardship of the Earth would revolve around humility of consvervation rather than ripping oil out of the ground and burning it. I am afraid this would be a belief of mine. And as you know, a belief is not based on logic, it is based on faith.
To quote you:
"...historical perspective, combined with
recognition of God’s wisdom in designing His world, might point
toward waiting patiently for more unequivocal scientific results,
before adopting any particular policy to fight global warming –
especially if those policies would significantly reduce the
economic growth that is essential to raising billions of people in
developing countries out of poverty, misery, disease and early
mortality."
Please clarify this as it sound utterly absurd to me.
Global warming is quite real, here are the facts:
1) That the surface of the earth has warmed over the last several
decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
The global ground weather station network shows warming:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The balloon record shows this same warming:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows
that the air near the surface is warming too:
The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
The record of sea ice melting:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
The glacier retreat record:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
The bore hole record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Rising sea level:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
2) Over the last 28 years direct, not proxy, measurement of the
sun's output has shown no long term growth, so something else
must be warming the Earth:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
3) There are many other things that cause climate change.
Below, please find a graph of several of them. Note that
the green line, representing man-made greenhouse gas
emissions easily dominate all other potential causes of the
observed warming today and that they are growing the fastest.
Please see:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt
Rising temperature does not mean it is because of global warming, and it is only for few decades. What I'm trying to say for all these time is we are in part of cycle where temperature increases
Something to bear in mind when thinking of global warming...
It's been a while, but from my paleoecology class the earth has been in a constant state of fluctuating temperature. The fluctuations have been steady, but over the last few hundred thousand years the cycles of hot/cold have speeded up, just natural. For instance, the last "ice age", or period of cold cycle, ended sometime in the 14th century. Since then, we've been warming up, nice and natural. Whatever temperatures the future holds in store for us, it's nothing that the planet hasn't been through already.
Air quality, on the other hand, is something to worry about. Heck, we have yet to recover from the pollution of the industrial revolution. On a better note, high standards for emissions seems to be working - I read a report the other day on how currently the exhaust on new vehicals in LA, California, is cleaner than the air intake into the engine. "Cleaner" is a relative term, but at least we're finally getting somewhere.
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." -- Albert Einstein
Global warming is real. Even Fox News is admitting it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194008,00.html
EVEN Fox new? It is media and no one really trust media. They really don't know what is going on. Not just Fox, but ABC, CNN, and other news channel just talk about the side of global warming. I think that is mostly bias, because they don't show other side of view and other studies about global warming is not exist
Have a look at google news and search under 'global warming' and you will get a full range of opinion.
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=&q=global+warming&btnG=Search+News
cheers
norm
Let's just say that global warming does exist because the truth of the matter is, we all have to better the way we are living. The dependency on products that give off many hazardous emissions are not only dangerous for the Earth but for ourselves as well. And yes, a lot of what is said is theory but their are facts and proofs, and many has just been stated above, so what we've got to do is stop it. Or lessen it. This doesn't solve the problem, but its a start until we find the solution and although we can say things like "It's not my problem," It seems cold and heartless to not care about the planet that houses you and cares for you. I'm pretty sure many of us won't do a thing about it, but at the very least, we know that we understand and something must be done. Mother Nature may be strong but Nature can only take so much. We presume too much that things will be fine in the end.. and what happens in the end if it doesn't? What happens when, 200 hundred years in the road, our descendants are living with the consequences of our sloth? we have to face the consequences or our children will pay for it.
Okay, it's true that the Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling.
However, it is basic chemistry that certain gases cause heat energy to become trapped, and it follows through pretty simple logic that if enough are added to the atmosphere, heat will becoxme trapped. If we keep the levels of greenhouse gases that normally rise and fall elevated at their peak, then eventually bad things will happen. And whether the greenhouse effect is real or not...acid rain, acid lakes, smog, those things are real. A good chunk of the black forest is permanently dead because Germany didn't reduce its emissions in time. And the measures to contain those issues are mostly the same as those to contain global warming. Except that adding a strong alkaline to the Ozone layer won't effect it the same as it does a dead acid lake.
--------------------------------------
"The selection shows that manipulation is more important than genuine communication in this culture because honestly, who would want to go to a party for a bitch like Berkshire if they knew what she really thought about them?"
--This is how I ace the AP Lit Exam
Than it is basic physics that no matters can be created nor destroyed. All the greenhouse gasses are came from earth and living creatures like humans transformed the elements into greenhouse gasses. Therefore, all can be meet with equilibrium and reverse the cycle. If we can find how to reverse CO2 to Oxygen and other harmless gasses we don't even have to have this kind of arguments
I agree with Sjung9442 that there are too many theories and too many predictions. Let suppose that global warming is real, the effect is not taking for hundreds of years. By then we will have the technology to deal with the problems. Indeed, I think global warming is a good thing if you live in a country like Canada where I live. The winter in Canada is so cold and it would be nice for all Canadians if we have warmer and shorter winter. Even if catastropic event occurs, that is part of nature. There are more people die of other cause than gbobal warming. In the present, you can see million of people die of starvation, war, and other diseases. Why would we have to worry about something baseless and not going to take place hundreds of years from now while we are not going to live and see if it will happen??
One theory, and like many various predictions.
But it is simple enough. Comments before listed NASA information. Here is the US Federal Gov Environmental Protection Agency (maybe started by President Nixon).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
One page and one theory. I don't see how it's confusing at all. What is confusing is how anyone could see proceeding without using less burned oil and more alternatives like solar.
People know that Global Warming does exist its just that they don't care. As many of our resources are limited, why would you want to carelessly use them up and spit out pollution back into the enviornment? Even if you are long dead and gone, do you really want your children to have to live through all of that?
T. Hagan
++RECAP++
In case you dont want to read all the posts, heres an overview:
1) Everyone has proof that the earth is heating up
2) Some people have proof it is caused jointly by humans and a cyclic effect
3) Some people disupte that proof
4) This has turned into an argument over details, which is a great argument from a lawyers perspective because nobody can truely 'win'.
5) Nobody has really answered the question of 'what are we to do to keep humanity alive?' so far.
haha, thanks for that.
"mother nature will take care of it" that is the dumbest thing i ever heard, mother nature can't handle this obviously, the ozone is deteriorating faster than it can rebuld itself, mother nature can't take care of that, the warming obviously isn't normal and theres prove its due to pollution, mother nature can take care of natures problems not man made ones
No, global warming does not really exist.
Yes it does.
Of course global warming is really happening. What rock do you live under?
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/36697/
http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=224600
There is so much more I could say but lots of other people already did.
Upon searching for a homework assignment, I fell towards this website. I have read at least 25 posts. I may be the last to blog or maybe not, but I must just say a few things first.
I was intrigued by Sjung's idea of the Earth going through a cycle, and I completely agree with him. And that's not the first time I had heard of that theory, my mother made the same assumption. Not too long ago humans were saying Global warming was in effect, and that was at least 30 years ago, although it was'nt called global warming.
Another problem is that people will say "Global Warming is true, but it will not effect our generation, only that of our great grandchildren." But if we are so worried about it for ourselves, should we not prevent it for our great grandchildren? Some in this blog say that they will not suffer the effects of Global Warming, but that my generation will. And how do you think that makes me feel? Blogs like this should not be stumbled upon by children my age, for most cannot handle it. But quite frankly, I have no belief in Global Warming whatsoever.
I EARGE YOU TO READ THIS LAST LINE.
I will leave with one last question of mine. If an Ice age occured millions of years ago, would that not be the effect of an old Warming, and would that not be proof of an Earthly cycle. But whose to say one really did, and if it did, how did the Earth warm up, and the ice melted with no flood effect, with all of that OZONE?!?!?! Thanks for listening, and so what if you'll see parts of my blog that sound stupid or that have no backup, but I'm living my life to the fullest, and not worrying about this warming. And I advise thats what everyone else not involved should do.
I personally believe in the global warming theory. It is a fact that in the past years temperatures have risen. It is also known that this had some effects on environmnet already: for example, the melting of ice at the poles. These are things we can't ignore.
That they rose during the Midevil period enough so that the vikings could farm on Greenland. They also rose during the dustbowl and most of the warmest years on record were during that decade. And they fell during the 1970s and the best scientific minds of the time told us we were entering an ice age.
And the ice pack at the South Pole is increasing.
It is all hooey.
Global warming does very much exist, and all credible scientists agree. The government has created myths that it is just a theory when it is fact. Please see An Inconvenient Truth. It's a great movie and it is not partisan.
Someone here said that plankton cannot survive in warmer waters.
Have a look at this site - http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/factsheets/phytoplankton.html
Here is a little snippet-
'While diatoms are essentially cool water inhabitants, their counterparts in tropical waters are called dinoflagellates.'
So if Planktons food is CO2, doesn't that mean a more abundant food supply = more offspring survive therefore consuming more CO2?
The same site above mentions that Plankton reproduce '100 million offspring in a month.'
At worst, the rising pollution and CO2 will cause something to happen that may extinct humans or significantly reduce the global population. Then the earth will clear the CO2 using the excess Plankton and other vegetation that will thrive with no human threat.
Then hey presto we're back to caveman times.
Cycle complete!
Watch An Inconvenient Truth. It'll tell you all you need to know about Global Warming.
There really is no argument anymore, no disagreement. Global Warming is real. It IS an imminent threat...and likely more imminent than the threat of some supposed terrorist attack.
And I hope never again to hear or read anyone saying that they don't care about Global Warming because they'll be dead before it has any effect on the world... oh, how wrong you are. It's already had an effect. What do you think Hurricane Katrina was? (Maybe I should say IS, because the effects of it are still being felt.)
Read up on the issue, or watch the movie I recommended above, and you'll see that it's real.
___________________________
"Let the world change you, and you will change the world."
It has everything to do with the shifting of the earth as the earth slowly turn out of its proper order we see the effects and we see it in many parts of the world .even were I live in the North Canada North west territories , NWT. OUR WINTER started very mild right up until November 20 we were having - 5 to - 10 in our tempter and all in a sudden after November 20 - 30 and colder I have lived here for 46 years and I have never see such a thing happen why because like I said the earth is slowly shifting .we see the changes up here more then people see in other parts of the world .So no there is no such thing as global warming .THE WORLD STARTED TO SLOWLY SHIFT IN 1996 IF ANONE IS INTRESTED IN KNOWING.Amen
The real question that the global warming debate adresses is the impact that humans can actually have on our environment. As the dominant species on the planet, we would like to believe that we're just a fly on the face of a giant, and that our actions can't possibly do anything irreversible do the planet. In our pursuit of progress, we seem to have forgotten the idea of co-existence. On my drive to work today, I saw 4 new houses ( Im in western PA) being built. The lots that they were being built on were previously forested. The houses are going to be gorgeous, but I'm not entirely sure that they needed to clear the 20 acres of forest for 4 houses. We seem to have this notion that everything will grow back and that just one lot being cleared won't do anything, but that's not true if EVERYONE thinks that way. Exploitation of natural resources should be the galvanizing issue for environmentalists, not global warming. By the virtue of fighting to limit and tightly regulate deforestation, strip-mining, unnessecary land development and the like, a positive effect on the environment will be seen. It's not enough to buy a hybrid car and say the environment is fixed. Consumption of "renewable" resources is at an alarming pace, with no signs of slowing down. If people honestly care about the environment, steps need to be taken to live with the land, not off it. My personal opinions on global warming is that, wether the science is conclusive or not, it is the duty for all humans to be good stewards of this planet so that future generations can enjoy the same wonderous natural world we live in. Whether or not you believe in global warming isn't an issue. The issue is whether or not you believe in giving our children, and our children's children, a world that is both beautiful and safe to live in. I don't care if Florida floods in the next 10 years (probably not but, who knows?). I do care that my great great grandchildren can walk outside the house and not have to wear a gas mask while looking at one giant global parking lot.