Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 10

I think that effectively, we can say that a certain amount of global warming is taking place. We can say confidently that there is a hole in the ozone layer. We can say that we know exactly what chemicals cause this type of global warming. But the question still remains, is it natural or man made?

Some things we must remember when taking this question into account that I would like to review for all of you.

1. Global warming has happened before naturally, and will happen again naturally. In fact, if you study the newest evidence on the "Snowball Earth" theory, you realize that massive global warming events have happened before life even began on the earth.

2. There is a hole in the ozone layer, but we don't know when it got there. We never looked in that wave spectrum before so we don't know how long that hole has been there. For all we know, it could have been there for a millennia or more. We don't know that we created it. But we do know that it is growing faster, thats not in contention.

3. The real question is do these changes in temperature and the ozone layer indicate a climate change is eminent? We don't know, we haven't studied climate enough to really be sure. Climate changes generally take years to happen, but analyzing history tells us when climates will change, but those figures span millions of years.

4. If a climate change is happening, not just warming but a global event that would essentially lead to an ice age, can we prevent it? Well, I guess that depends on whats causing it. There is no sure bet that we can effect this at all. If global warming is happening, and I believe that it is, we are likely making it worse, but not its root cause. Many scientists now believe that we can only slow it down, not stop it.

5. What is the real reason that we aren't taking steps NOW to eleviate global warming? Well, some will try and tell you that its just too expensive, but that is a false assumption. Countries much poorer than us have made large scale changes that ultimately saves the country and its people money. Renewable fuel can and often is cheaper than fossil fuels. Brazil has proven it for many years now. We aren't switching the fuels we use because we are addicted to oil. The idea that the use of alternate fuels is years away is an american made myth. We could easily be using alternate fuels, but we have self made oil billionaires making sure that doesn't happen.

6. What can we really do to help slow or stop global warming? Stop using oil. Period. That would be massive. We are like 1/10th of the worlds population using 25% of the worlds oil, thats too much. We need to start producing and buying more fuel efficient cars. If you are single, married with no kids, or only one kid, why do you need an SUV? We treat big cars as trophies, we are our own worst enemies. Oil pollution is something that could be reduced drastically in this country, but we are the only ones who won't do it.

7. The things we can do to help "stop" global warming are beneficial to the society at large. All the things suggested by the Kyoto protocol benefit the air we breathe, the water we drink, and put more money in our pockets. Like I said before, my electricity prices are lower now because the midwest opened a new wind farm. Cheap, clean, renewable resources for electricity instead of coal. There are more and more children born with autism every year in this country, most doctors believe its something in the air. We have a higher percentage of autistic babies born than any other country and have the highest air pollution rate.

See, the argument on whether global warming is natural or man-made, or even happening at all should be a moot point. The things required to change benefit the US. You have to ask yourself, if the technology is there and better for us, why is everyone but us doing it? I really think that the US hypes this argument against the world not because they think its not happening, but because our special interest lobby groups are greedy. I tend to think that its unlikely that the worlds scientists are completely wrong and we are completely right. If its happening, then we should be prepared, and try to slow it down. Why not, it doesn't hurt us any, in fact, it helps.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

This is totally untrue! The theory behind this statement is also flawed. You have taken a naturally occurring event, handpicked one small element while ignoring the rest, and then completely misrepresented the magnitude of this element without attempting to compare it to human output.

Hawaii volcano watch explains:

Volcanic eruptions are a natural event that pour large amounts of natural SO2 into the atmosphere. They have been doing this since time began and play a small, yet important role in warming the Earth enough to be inhabited. Humans play a much more significant and permanent role.

The big Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 spewed about 30 million tonnes of CO2 into the air. That's only about 0.5% of how much humans chug out each year - 7,700 million tons. This completely dismisses the claim that volcanoes do more greenhouse damage than we do.

Mt Pinabuto also erupted a lot of SO2 - 20 million tonnes. Because it reflects sunlight, the SO2 cools the temperature in the region by a degree or so for a couple of years afterwards. This is a natural occurring effect and by no means permanent. It has been happening for billions of years.

Hawaii volcano observatory

The greenhouse effect is a natural occurring phenomenon that makes Earth warm enough for us to live on it. We actually need this to survive. Without greenhouse gases we would be a frozen rock like Mars. When scientists talk about the greenhouse effect, they actually mean the enhanced greenhouse effect - which is what happens when the regular greenhouse effect gets out of hand. This causes temperatures rise, oceans to swell, and unnatural climate change.

It is caused by gases in our atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane. They trap energy from the sun's light and reflect it back to Earth, so we just keep on getting warmer. For the last couple of centuries we've been blowing the carbon dioxide levels out of whack by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

The debate about global warming isn't about how the earth regulates its own temperature. It's about what humans contribute to this effect.

Global warming is happening. This is FACT. Global warming is not even being debated by those who blame humans and those who don't. What is being debated is the extent of human contribution to Global Warming. The overwhelming majority of the science world claim humans are contributing significantly to global warming. I would like some links to scientists who dismiss the human effect if anyone can find some please?

We were talking about who profits from the religious hysteria of the global warming alarmists. And that is VERY clear. It sure isn't the common people, the ones who receive the advantages of cheap gasoline, cheap power, easy travel, and a high standard of living. It is ONLY the elites.

Do you believe the British Government is "profiting" by global warming hysteria? The people who profit by global warming denial are chiefly those who pollute the most carbon dioxide. That is obvious. Business-biased think tanks are also profiting by predicting the economy will collapse if we drop our dependency on burning fossil fuels. It's not the common people who profit. And you will find most common people are environmentally savvy and recognize global warming as a threat. As Konq says, reducing carbon emissions if nothing else, makes the world a cleaner place. Alternative fuels are working in countries such as Brasil. It is so easy for greedy consumer and fossil fuel-addicted humans to turn off their lights and TV when they are not in use. Simple measures may help us tackle global warming. But they will certainly help us live in a cleaner planet.

I am also sick of people dismissing the modeling process used to predict global warming patterns. If you are all so smart, then why don't you do an advanced Maths and Physics degree and come up with a more accurate way? We weren't around billions of years ago, so we will never completely know what the climate was like back then and why it was like that. Just as we will never completely know how accurate human history is. All we can do is use the best science available to understand what has happened and what is likely to happen. That is what is being used by scientists today to conclude that humans do contribute to global warming.

Yet again, I invite a response to the Stern Report. Since a lot of this debate has been about handpicking bits and pieces of information to support their agenda, whether based on scientific fact or not, I want to progress it to the cost of global warming. That is the one excuse countries like ht US and Australia have constantly used to ignore Kyoto.

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

I was reading slash dot today and came across an article in which some scientist has a "brilliant" idea that we should cover the earth in thin layer of smog to help stop global warming. In this article was a link to an article about pollution that ran on Nova sometime this month.

For several years we have wondered why the temperature, against all climate models, ocassionally goes down by average. This makes it appear that global warming is either not happening or that we are actually cooling. Well, new evidence shows us that pollution is actually masking the effects of global warming and the human effect on it. The article brings to light evidence that we are likely CAUSING not only the global warming, but the "dimming" effect that is masking our destruction of our ozone layer, which leads to irreparably global warming.

But the article also does what every good program on global warming does, it tells us what we can do NOW to stop or slow this down. As for people making money off global warming hysteria? Thats just silly. Implementing stops against global warming would create jobs for people but cost the government billions. The reason we ignore global warming is because it costs so much to combat it. There is no money to be made from clamoring about global warming. But money does play a major factor, just not where it is being claimed.

As for not being a fact, I have only been able to see reports about certain parts of the global warming theory that have holes in them or have another explanation. No respected scientist claims its simply not happening. And the only ones that say that humans aren't making it worse are ones whose country has a significant amount of money to save by not buying into it. And to say its just a theory is just silly, the same argument has been made against evolution, its just a theory. Well, so is the theory of gravity, and physics as a whole, and the theory of relatively, but we all know those are facts and not theories like it is being portrayed. There are different types of theories. But global warming is a measurable event, not just something someone came up with.

Check out this web page on NOVA

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Edited: konquererz on 20th Nov, 2006 - 12:02am

Page 10 Man-made Natural Warming Global

they say on the T V history shows that the ancient romans use to burn so much wood that the sky's use to be very blackened. yet since they were not so many as compared of these days then the earth was able to heal itself pluss the wood wasn't able to spread smoke very far. but these days with all the oil and there ofsprings of various things then just as a drop of gas will pollute a gallon of water then these things will and has combined to do extreme damage to the environment as well as the atmosphere.
luckily there are lots of people seeing this and are working on not only alternative fuels but ways of making what we do have be better.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

The US Supreme Court heard arguments last week regarding Global Warming and whether or not the EPA should be held responsible/accountable for enforcing the Clean Air (and Clean Water) Act with regard to regulating known pollutants. The groups involved in bringing this suit -- the State of Massachussetss, Sierra Club, and other environmental groups -- want to have carbon dioxide (CO2) classified as a pollutant, and specifically that CO2 is a known contributor to global warming. Then they want to hold the EPA (and the United States Government) responsible for regulating it (or not).
From Carl Pope:

https://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20061201/cm_huffpost/035349

From Daniel Weintraub:

https://www.sacbee.com/

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

I am a bit surprised that Carbon Dioxide emissions aren't considered a pollutant? Of course it can naturally be found in the atmosphere, that isn't part of the debate about global warming. The debate is whether human contributions to CO2 are causing warming. Science believes they are, most big business feel the opposite.

There is no doubt unnatural global warming is occurring. There are always natural cycles of climate change, but what we are experiencing now is above and beyond the predicted natural cycle. In fact, since the industrial age began, the greenhouse gas emissions rate in our atmosphere, measured by particles per million, has increased from 280ppm to the current level of 430 ppm. Most of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere in relation to damage is CO2. It is expected to rise significantly over the next 50-100 years.

Greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere cause a heating effect on our climate. This much we know.

This US Supreme Court debate is very important. While several US states are taking the lead on Climate Change, California being the most high profile, it's the US federal government that needs convincing. While it seems strange such decisions would be made in court, as opposed to parliament, I hope they finally accept the science and realize that time is running out to address the global warming challenge.

I would like to ask everyone, do you believe there should be a social cost placed on Carbon emissions? This could be in the form of green taxes or through a emissions trading scheme.

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 10

So, if I read this correctly, you're saying that the government should make laws concerning human-generated CO2?

If that's the case, then it won't be long before the government decides how much I can exhale on a daily basis. Do you think long-distance runners, hikers, mountain climbers, swimmers, track and field enthusiasts, football and basketball players, and other athletes will be CO2 regulated? Will they have to register for an emissions trading bank when they have an athletic event? How about enclosing all sports arenas, churches, hospitals, supermarkets, and malls, and installing air scrubbers to eliminate the human-generated CO2 before it's dispersed into the atmostphere -- after all, think of all those people in one place, breathing in and out for hours!

It sounds absurd, but really when you think about it, regulating CO2 means regulating a very personal human activity -- breathing. (And if you think the government wouldn't do anything so absurd, ask the TSA how many grandmother's knitting needles they've confiscated from airline passengers whilst on the lookout for Islamic terrorists.)

Classifying CO2 as a pollutant would be a very bad move, indeed, in my opinion.

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 10

Farseer,

I think you misunderstand me. When I say human generated I don't mean the emissions caused by humans literally! I meant the emissions caused by human actions, eg: energy generation and use, the use of cars and other transport, heavy polluting factories etc.

We don't need to use as much energy as we currently do and there are much cleaner forms of energy that should be explored and used. Energy is the crux of this argument because CO2 is a massive by-product of energy production, which means the use of energy contributes significantly to CO2 emissions.

Regulating CO2 is a necessity. It is already happening in the US and many other parts of the world.

Basically you have to look at it this way. The social cost of global warming isn't a myth, it will be a reality. If the earth continues to warm at its current rate there will be mass water shortages, flooding, extinction of animals, environmental destruction, dislocation of people etc. This will cost a lot of money to fix. We know that the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere causes the world to heat up. We also know this has been a growing trend since industrialisation began, with particular acceleration in recent years. So the extra carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is definitely contributing to global warming. Therefore we have to accept that carbon dioxide emissions bare a social cost.

That is why CO2 should be classed a pollutant and regulated. We pay money to dispose of our rubbish, why shouldn't we, as a society, pay money to reduce the rubbish we put into our atmosphere?