Global Warming Question

[Darkness]

I have been reading up on global warming a little, because I really know nothing about the issues and controversies surrounding it. What I learned is that during the Middle Ages, there was a period of global warming. My question is that if there was global warming before the industrial revolution, why are scientists so sure that global warming is being caused my man-made pollution rather than natural occurrences?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Much of it has to do with us having a better understanding of the causes of global warming. We know now that certain molecules (greenhouse gases) affect our climate, and we also know that we are subjecting the atmosphere to a large amount of these, suggesting that we may be artificially changing the climate (or enhancing the effects).

 

[Darkness]

Yes, but if the Earth can naturally warm up without human intervention, what is the point of decreasing our green house gases? Is it that the next time the world warms up, it will be much worse?

By the way, I sound more skeptical than I actually am. I merely want to understand how scientists reason that the world is warming by virtue of man's (woman's) actions.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, but if the Earth can naturally warm up without human intervention, what is the point of decreasing our green house gases? Is it that the next time the world warms up, it will be much worse?

By the way, I sound more skeptical than I actually am. I merely want to understand how scientists reason that the world is warming by virtue of man's (woman's) actions.

Essentially, I believe it's about throwing off warming and cooling cycles. If I remember my ecology right, there is a climate cycle that appears to be fairly steady. By throwing it off, we're disrupting something that could have some negative results.

But I have wondered sometimes if this is like the history of us stopping forest fires: we thought we were doing an ecological, environmentally-sound thing, but as it turns out, forest fires are critical to forest health, and not allowing them to burn the flammable stuff on the forest floor we allow for bigger fires later and remove environments that certain fire-hardy plants and animals thrive in.

Still, I think it is wise to decrease our emissions, because let's face it, doing so forces us to move on with our technology and decreases other forms of pollutants we know are dangerous beyond being greenhouse gases.

 

[Ringer]

The consensus seems to be that while humans are not totally responsible for global warming, we are accelerating the process to a fast enough pace that animals are not able to adapt properly. I think I tend to be a little more optimistic about the Earth's future and don't think the world's ecosystem will experience a total collapse in 50 years. The problem is that we've only been able to measure and formulate trends in a sliver of the Earth's existence. At the end of the day, I'm not so sure there's enough evidence to suggest that we are the main culprits or if we are just going through a natural cycle. Somebody that has more experience can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Zephyr]

Global warming doesn't matter. It's probably accelerated by humans, but you know what? I don't give a damn. Environmentalist measures would easily have plenty of justification even if global warming was a myth.

 

[DallasApple]

I just put an ice pack on my feet at night and dont worry about it.

It really works your whole body cools down...

Love

Dallas

 

[darkendless]

Global warming doesn't matter. It's probably accelerated by humans, but you know what? I don't give a damn. Environmentalist measures would easily have plenty of justification even if global warming was a myth.

I'm skeptical of global warming because many scientists refuse to post their data. Sure a graph is a handy tool, but without numbers its meaningless. We need hard data and we need it now to destroy skepticism once and for all.

If i were a scientist i would keep up the agenda simply because from a recourses and sustainability position we cannot maintain our current output levels. OIl, plastics, gas and every other luxery we take for granted are being raped. It takes a shock to the system for us pathetic human beings to get off our backsides and make a change. Its Americans, Chinese and Australians that are the worst offenders yet between us we have to most adept minds for change

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm skeptical of global warming because many scientists refuse to post their data. Sure a graph is a handy tool, but without numbers its meaningless. We need hard data and we need it now to destroy skepticism once and for all.

If i were a scientist i would keep up the agenda simply because from a recourses and sustainability position we cannot maintain our current output levels. OIl, plastics, gas and every other luxery we take for granted are being raped. It takes a shock to the system for us pathetic human beings to get off our backsides and make a change. Its Americans, Chinese and Australians that are the worst offenders yet between us we have to most adept minds for change

If you want to really help the planet, do not buy any products from India, China or Mexico. What good does it do to clean up our act and then buy products from dirty polluting countries?

 

[darkendless]

If you want to really help the planet, do not buy any products from India, China or Mexico. What good does it do to clean up our act and then buy products from dirty polluting countries?

Over here we have a thing called "OZ made" which is a symbol denoting which items are made in Australia. Usually they cost 20-30 cents more but its worth it The computer im typing on was made in Singapore

What needs to happen is more people need to be a lot harsher with our useless governments and inform them of what they're doing. Or even better, inform the competition what the government is doing, and force them to change no matter what the cost. Its been said many times before, "the cost of doing nothing will far exceed the cost of acting now."

 

[Valjean]

I have been reading up on global warming a little, because I really know nothing about the issues and controversies surrounding it. What I learned is that during the Middle Ages, there was a period of global warming. My question is that if there was global warming before the industrial revolution, why are scientists so sure that global warming is being caused my man-made pollution rather than natural occurrences?

During the middle ages there was a period of global cooling, called the little ice age. It terminated the Scandanavian colonies in Iceland, for example. Ended about 1865.

The Earth's climate changes all the time, but usually it does so s l o w l y, and ecosystems have time to make the needed adaptations. When it changes abruptly, though, it can cause havoc.
In geologic time the current rate of change is pretty much instant.

Scientists are sure today's climate change is mostly man-made because many of the mechanisms and causes of climate change are understood, those mechanisms are currently in full play, and most are human generated.
Warming curves, CO2 levels, &c are tracking these human-generated mechanisms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the modern day warming is a combination of natural and man made effects. Now, the earth is going to do what it's going to do, but when man adds to it, things can become much worse.

 

[Oberon]

I think the modern day warming is a combination of natural and man made effects. Now, the earth is going to do what it's going to do, but when man adds to it, things can become much worse.

I think you are right. However, I also don't think we have enough data. The vast majority of specialists agree with the theory of climate change, but not as many believe humans are responsible for adding to it at this point.

Personally, I think we just don't know enough. Consistent temperature readings only go back a century, and in most places on earth not even that far. The earth warmed slightly during the seventies, despite an increase in CO2. CO2 also isn't a very powerful greenhouse gas, in that thermodynamically it doesn't have the anywhere near the effect of, say, water vapor. We are fairly sure that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods. Given how small our data sample of temperatures is, combined with the urban heat island effect, it is tough to say that we have the facts to posit that humans are contributing to a current warming trend.

I also think that rash decisions without enough data can result in catastrophe. Even within "green" history this is clear. The banning of DDT, a fairly harmless and extremely effective pesticide, killed millions of people, all because of an evironmental scare.

I say fund more research before funding more policies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My personal opinion is, even if global warming isn't even happening, what is so wrong with "going green" anyways? Why not switch from coal and oil to wind, solar, or geothermal? Not only are they clean, they are easier to harvest, don't destroy the environment from harvesting, and we won't to worry about running out. We don't have to look to far to see cities that are indeed suffering from heavy polution and smog. So why not switch? If not for the earth's sake then our own?

 

[Oberon]

My personal opinion is, even if global warming isn't even happening

The question is not as much "is the earth warming" but "do the actions of humanity contribute to this? and in a negative way?"

what is so wrong with "going green" anyways?

No action is without consequences. I thought recycling was great until I read that the pollution generated by recycling could be worse than just throwing most thing away. I read more, and I believe recycling is best.

The point is, however, that "going green" has had some terrible effects. One needs only to look at the history of Yellowstone Park to see this. The best and most drastic example is the banning of DDT. Carson's book sparked a movement to "save the birds" by banning this very effective pesticide, and as a result malaria came back as a major illness, killing millions.d

Acting on "scare tactics" whether it be terrorism or global warming or the communist invasion can readily lead to disaster. All actions have consequences, and some of the "green" policies have pretty heavy consequences of their own.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Acting on "scare tactics" whether it be terrorism or global warming or the communist invasion can readily lead to disaster. All actions have consequences, and some of the "green" policies have pretty heavy consequences of their own.

That is interesting, but my theory was aimed more at energy use and pollution. Some cities have such high levels of pollution that have smog warnings. So why not replace the coal and oil used to energize the cities with something cleaner? And not only to reduce pollution, but we will run out of fossil fuels. The sun and wind will be around until the end of man or the earth, whichever comes first.

 

[Oberon]

That is interesting, but my theory was aimed more at energy use and pollution. Some cities have such high levels of pollution that have smog warnings. So why not replace the coal and oil used to energize the cities with something cleaner? And not only to reduce pollution, but we will run out of fossil fuels. The sun and wind will be around until the end of man or the earth, whichever comes first.

I am certainly for using the wind, currents, and sun for energy. However, I also think that there is an irrational hatred and fear of nuclear power. I think we should spend more time and money investing in new and better nuclear plants.

 

[Valjean]

I think you are right. However, I also don't think we have enough data. The vast majority of specialists agree with the theory of climate change, but not as many believe humans are responsible for adding to it at this point.

Personally, I think we just don't know enough. Consistent temperature readings only go back a century, and in most places on earth not even that far. The earth warmed slightly during the seventies, despite an increase in CO2. CO2 also isn't a very powerful greenhouse gas, in that thermodynamically it doesn't have the anywhere near the effect of, say, water vapor. We are fairly sure that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods. Given how small our data sample of temperatures is, combined with the urban heat island effect, it is tough to say that we have the facts to posit that humans are contributing to a current warming trend.

Yet virtually every scientist involved in relevant disciplines is convinced that it's human generated and poses a risk of catastrophe.

I also think that rash decisions without enough data can result in catastrophe. Even within "green" history this is clear. The banning of DDT, a fairly harmless and extremely effective pesticide, killed millions of people, all because of an evironmental scare.

DDT wasn't "fairly harmless." It was causing an ecological catastrophe that would eventually have had a much more serious effect on human society than the malaria &al it helped control.

I say fund more research before funding more policies.

...said the frog in the pan.
At what point will you eventually cry havoc?

 

[darkendless]

No action is without consequences. I thought recycling was great until I read that the pollution generated by recycling could be worse than just throwing most thing away. I read more, and I believe recycling is best.

That pollution saves valuable resources though, especially plastics which really do rape our resources.

Acting on "scare tactics" whether it be terrorism or global warming or the communist invasion can readily lead to disaster. All actions have consequences, and some of the "green" policies have pretty heavy consequences of their own.

Scare tactics are the only thing that will get us moving to a more renewable way of life. Our current reliance is based on convenience. The technology to change is there, we're just too lazy.

 

[Oberon]

Yet virtually every scientist involved in relevant disciplines is convinced that it's human generated and poses a risk of catastrophe.

This simply isn't true. There are many scientists who doubt whether it is "human generated" or natural, and that is without even getting into HOW influential human activity is in global warming, as the the VAST majority of greenhouse gasses are natural (volcanoes, water vapor, etc).

DDT wasn't "fairly harmless." It was causing an ecological catastrophe that would eventually have had a much more serious effect on human society than the malaria &al it helped control.

Completely false. The scare began with Carson's "Silent Spring" without the research to back it up. It was very safe for humans (more so than what replaced it). The birds Carson described were already dying out, and later research only showed that DDT MAY have caused a thinning in shells. Meanwhile, MILLIONS of people died from malaria as a result of the ban.

At what point will you eventually cry havoc?

Considering that, even if the earth's warming is being contributed to by humans, it might actually be better in many ways, I'll wait for better research. Our current models, when run backwards, fail to predict past temperatures. So we can hardly count on them as accurate predictors of the future.