Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 11

I understood completely what you meant. And what I'm saying is, if you allow human-generated CO2 to be regulated by a government agency because it is a harmful polluting substance, you can bet soooner or later it's going to affect humans on a very personal level. Human-generated CO2 happens all the time, all day long.

I realize that you think I'm being obtuse or difficult or even ridiculous, but I'm seeing a much more far-reaching affect on people if the EPA is forced to regulate CO2 in that manner. It won't stop at factories and car emissions.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

I think regulating CO2 will have an effect on our day to day lives. It will force human beings in wealthy countries so be less wasteful of resources, or pay. I don't see a problem with that at all.

The fact is, the wealthier we become, the more wasteful and lazy we are. I believe regulating pollutants like CO2, which is a pollutant whether the US Government says so or not, will force a change in human behaviour.

We don't need to use the levels of energy we currently do. We don't all need to have heavy guzzling massive cars to get from A to B. In the west we are too spoilt by luxury and not affected enough by necessity. I think as a society we must take the lead on becoming smarter with our use of energy.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

Those are all valid points, and I agree that we in the industrialized nations should take heed and "tread lightly" on the earth to reduce pollution and respect the planet that supports our lives. That's just common sense, a given.

But I don't believe that anything we do will stop this planet from cycling through normal climate changes. It's like saying, if every person in the world stands up and leans to the left all at the same time, we can change the direction of the orbit of the earth or slow the rotation on its axis. It's just silly. We aren't going to have any affect on global climate no matter what we do.

Page 11 Man-made Natural Warming Global

I guess we have a difference of opinion on this one Farseer.

All the evidence I have researched shows quite clearly that the level of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmoshpere has increased significantly since industrialisation began. And this trend is set to continue, according to all the leading scientific experts in the world.

My whole point is, even if eveyone doesn't believe humans cause global warming, it makes good economic and environmental sense to regulate pollution and use renewable energy. If nothing else, it cleans up our airways. I am sure you have noticed the massive diference in pollution levels between cities like Los Angeles and the country.

The earth has normal temperature cycles, but what we are experiencing now is not natural. Australia is currently experiencing the worst drought in its recorded history. This is a good litmus test of global warming because the ozone layer above Australia has been partially destoyed because of pollution from the world, so that country feels warming quite significantly.

I am in London right now. I am told by people who have lived hear for many years they believe the weather in London and Europe is definitely warming. Annecdotal evidence aside, temperature records are definetly being set in both England and Australia.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

You can't prove that. Just because it hasn't been recorded, doesn't mean it's never happened before. And, frankly, just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it's not a natural occurrence. We don't know everything that has happened to the earth since it's creation. A lot of our so-called earth science is based on presumptions, estimations, and guesses.

When did humans start recording the status of the Ozone Layer? In the 1970s? It can't be proven that humans have any effect on the Ozone Layer. It's not something that was even thought of a thousand years ago, so how can anyone begin to say it's been caused by human activity?

Have you never heard of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? The earth goes through cycles of climate change, and there's hardly anything we can do to change that.

This is the one point we do agree on. I'm all for cleaning up pollution, and preventing future despoiling of the earth and her resources. Yes, I have seen the difference in L.A. Pollution is pollution, but in my opinion it's a completely different topic than global warming.

Edited: FarSeer on 10th Dec, 2006 - 4:14pm

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Here is an interesting twist on the culprit:

https://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

It seems that cattle is our number one foe with regards to methane emmissions. There are a number of studies going on in effort to reduce the emmissions from the cattle. The cattle also generate nitrous oxide as well.

https://www.epa.gov/ruminant/faq.html

This would suggest that dietary changes in humans could be even more effective than trading in your SUV. However, this did make me think about prehistoric times. If cattle can do this from eating greens, what would the vegetarian dinosaurs have been capable of? That might explain the rather warm period we hear about in the earth's history.

Edited: Vincenzo on 11th Dec, 2006 - 6:56am

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 11

This is true. But almost all science is based on assumptions and estimations, which are then hypothesized and formulated into theory based on the results. If you apply your logic that we can't ever prove anything if we aren't around to see it, then basically we can rule out the existence of dinosaurs and thousands of other species of animals despite physical evidence to the contrary.

I have heard of the medieval warming and little ice age periods. They add significant weight to the argument that climate change over the past 200 years or so is human generated. Below I have pasted a link to a graph which plots temperatures for these periods up to 2004. You will note the sharp rise in temperature from around the mid 1800s, when industrialisation took off. You will also note that in 2004 the highest recorded temps were well above those experienced in the medieval warm period.

Temperature over time

Now we can all dismiss these findings as coincidence or try to find an explanation. It's a well known fact that greenhouse gasses contribute to warming of the earth. This stuff isn't made up by green groups. These gases, by their very nature, cause warming. If you were to trap these gases in a sealed room, shine heat energy (like the sun) into that room, you would have a warming effect. Science has proved this happens. Not every gas released into the atmosphere has this effect. There are a lot of greenhouse gases that are naturally dispensed from our environment and they are vital to our ecosystem. There is a delicate balance at play. These regulate Earth's temperature so we don't freeze like Mars or boil like Venus. The climate change debate is about whether, or not, the greenhouse gases humans cause contribute to further or accelerated warming. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence says it is.

This doesn't suggest that at all, although I get what you are trying to say. Methane is more toxic in terms of its warming effect than Carbon Dioxide, but there is a massive misconception, largely being pushed by anti-climate change groups, that the net effect of methane is worse than the net effect of CO2. There is so much more CO2 in our atmosphere than methane levels are insignificant. They might contribute a very small amount but hardly anything compared to motor vehicles. That is why greenhouse gas levels are always expressed in terms of carbon per particle. It's really carbon which we need to regulate and cut down because it does the most damage.

Furthermore, methane from cattle, humans etc, is naturally produced. CO2 often is often a by-product of energy production and it's our energy usage we can change easiest.

I can't really understand the opposition to cleaning up our attack. Let's consider a few things here.

The world's leading scientists say climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it.

They predict by 2050 climate change will cause major destruction.

The world's leading economists predict that the damage bill could be between 5-20 percent of global GDP.

Those economists say it will cost between -1 to 5 percent to fix the problem.

If nothing else, cleaning up our use of energy creates better airways, a cleaner environment, which benefits everyone.

So why all the resistance?

Is greed for today so much more important than planning for the future of our children?

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 11

ARCTIC ICE COULD DISAPPEAR IN SUMMER BY 2040: STUDY

Global warming could melt almost all of the ice in the Arctic during the summer months by the year 2040, according to a study to be published Tuesday.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/12...greenhouse.html