global warming

[ktosia]

I'm really afraid of that, but it seems that no one else care about it. Everyone is driving around with big cars like suv that produce a lot of carbon dioxide, which is a major factor in global warming.

scientists say that in 40 years America will be almost all desert and Europe ice, so what future have our kids? (I don't have any)

But we are too lazy and we love everything big (the bigger the better and no one wants to change it's life.

(sorry for mistakes)

 

[draper]

I'm not sure about Europe being ice in 20 years and all that..but yes, climate change will eventually kill us at the rate we're going IMO. Glaciers are melting, and the general feeling in the scientific community is that this is because of human activity.

According to the Pentagon, climate change is a greater threat to US society than terrorism.

Also..not only climate change, but the environment as a whole. We're going to run into big trouble as far as getting clean drinking water goes...the smog in the air kills thousands of people (people with asthma, small kids and senior citizens with weaker respiratory systems) in Toronto alone...the list goes on.

 

[santalucia]

Oh please!! This is such a bogus issue that it boggles the mind that people get in a tizzy about it. Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that Europe will be ice and America will be desert in 40 years? Please show some credible source of that. And if the earth is warming so fast, why will Europe be ice? They better start worrying about their Muslim problem and negative birth rate, something actually real.

 

[santalucia]

By the way, your BODY is producing carbon dioxide, what are you going to do about it???

 

[kermit]

Oh please!! This is such a bogus issue that it boggles the mind that people get in a tizzy about it. Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that Europe will be ice and America will be desert in 40 years? Please show some credible source of that. And if the earth is warming so fast, why will Europe be ice? They better start worrying about their Muslim problem and negative birth rate, something actually real.

I'd say that the 40 years thing is a bit soon, but that is not to say that global warming is bogus. Most people who argue against it don't understand it. Global warming refers to average temperature. This means that while some places are getting warmer others are getting colder with an overall net gain. To put it in perpective during the last ice age the global temperature was only a few degrees colder than it is now. A few degrees change in the average can make a huge difference.

 

[kermit]

By the way, your BODY is producing carbon dioxide, what are you going to do about it???

The problem isn't that our bodies are producing co2 or that volcanos do or that Man does. The problem is that the earth can only process so much and we are well beyond the level. One of the sources has to be reduced and I don't see how it's possible to slow the naturally occuring ones.

 

[fecklesslytrying]

I'd say that the 40 years thing is a bit soon, but that is not to say that global warming is bogus. Most people who argue against it don't understand it. Global warming refers to average temperature. This means that while some places are getting warmer others are getting colder with an overall net gain. To put it in perpective during the last ice age the global temperature was only a few degrees colder than it is now. A few degrees change in the average can make a huge difference.

Exactly. I hear so many people dismiss global warming simply becuase it's cold out. They obviously don't understand the concept of it. I believe my area is supposed to get colder.

 

[Blemonds]

To put it in perpective during the last ice age the global temperature was only a few degrees colder than it is now. A few degrees change in the average can make a huge difference.

It couldn't have been any colder than it is tonight. It's close to 40 degrees here and it's only 6:30PM

 

[kermit]

It couldn't have been any colder than it is tonight. It's close to 40 degrees here and it's only 6:30PM

Don't confuse regional weather with global climates.

 

[Blemonds]

Don't confuse regional weather with global climates.

I'm a global thinker

 

[santalucia]

The problem isn't that our bodies are producing co2 or that volcanos do or that Man does. The problem is that the earth can only process so much and we are well beyond the level. One of the sources has to be reduced and I don't see how it's possible to slow the naturally occuring ones.

Why do you think we are well beyond the level? There are mechanisms for controlling CO2 in the oceans and earth. The sun has much more of an impact on earth termperatures, and it does not in the least have anything to do with us. The earth has always gone through drastic cycles, you know Greenland was once actually green. It was once much warmer than it is now. Besides, the earth and inhabitants fare much better when the earth is warmer rather than colder. The panicked cries of certain scientists have been found to be in error, usually sooner rather than later. One fairly recent example is the thickness of the Arctic ice decreasing, which was proven to be false by a Canadian scientist. But the faithful keep on believing, no matter what evidence is shown against them.

 

[draper]

You're living in denial if you don't think that the climate is changing because of human activity. Is there some nature involved? Perhaps. But the overwhelming feeling in the science communisy is that it is human-caused.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp -->look around on this page, theres tons of other resources on it
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/13/global.warming/

 

[Redneck]

I sure wish it was a little warmer outside now.

 

[santalucia]

Uh huh. It's 5 degrees here.

Now this sounds like a good book!

http://www.takenbystorm.info/id8.html

"Nonetheless people could be excused for thinking that when the IPCC talks about “global warming” they mean “warming” on a “global” scale. Certainly a picture like Figure 20 in the Working Group 1 Technical Summary (in which the entire world map is painted beige, yellow or red for warming) looks like warming is projected every where. But apparently we are now to believe that Official Science has abandoned this idea. In Mr. Calamai’s words the new, improved claim is a generic “climate change” under which “some parts of the world will warm and others cool, under certain assumptions” (his emphasis.) Talk about moving the goal posts! This hypothesis is meaningless. It could never be empirically tested since any change at all, even opposite events, can be equally cited as supporting evidence.



If this is what “climate change” really means, then sensible debate is over. To think we went to all the work of writing a book to debunk global warming, only to find that its proponents had retreated off the field. And now we’re being criticized for saying the IPCC is still even worried about global warming. It’s hard to keep up."

 

[santalucia]

Exactly. I hear so many people dismiss global warming simply becuase it's cold out. They obviously don't understand the concept of it. I believe my area is supposed to get colder.

Right. I can see why some mad scrambling had to be done in the face of record breaking cold temperatures each year. Hard to keep people's heart rates high and purses open under the circumstances. I'm glad you guys have it all figured out now though, and there won't be any more flip-flopping on the issue, as there has been since the 1970's when the science community was convinced that we were headed into an ice age and were madly trying to figure out ways to melt some of the polar ice caps with technology.

 

[Singing Bush]

The problem isn't that our bodies are producing co2 or that volcanos do or that Man does. The problem is that the earth can only process so much and we are well beyond the level. One of the sources has to be reduced and I don't see how it's possible to slow the naturally occuring ones.

I am genuinly curious here. Not trying to arouse your ire or anything. Do you have any sort of source for this claim? What evidence is there that "(1) the earth can only process so much [CO2] and (2) we are well beyond the level?" Thanks.

 

[Singing Bush]

For those of you all interested in both fiction and the whole global warming debate, may I suggest Michael Crichton's new book State of Fear. It's not his best work by any means, but still entertaining and interesting. I don't know how much truth there is to some of the concepts he debates as I'm certainly no expert on any of the scientific disciplines dealing w/ Earth's climate, but all his data is sourced and footnoted. And even if you don't care for any of that jazz, it's a good read irregardless.

 

[Saturn]

Religious people believe that they will be dead and in Heaven by the time global warming will have any effect, so it is not of any current concern.

part of the temp. fluctuation has to do with Earth's orbit getting bigger and smaller, it fluctuates. As the orbit diameter gets smaller, earth is closer to the sun and it gets warmer, and vice versa.

Regards.

 

[Vylo]

Why do you think we are well beyond the level? There are mechanisms for controlling CO2 in the oceans and earth. The sun has much more of an impact on earth termperatures, and it does not in the least have anything to do with us.

1. Those mechanisms do have their limits, and artifical production of CO and CO2 greatly push those limits.

2. The sun does not really have the greatest impact. The ability to retain heat is controlled by the atmosphere.

 

[kermit]

Uh huh. It's 5 degrees here.

Now this sounds like a good book!

http://www.takenbystorm.info/id8.html

"Nonetheless people could be excused for thinking that when the IPCC talks about “global warming” they mean “warming” on a “global” scale. Certainly a picture like Figure 20 in the Working Group 1 Technical Summary (in which the entire world map is painted beige, yellow or red for warming) looks like warming is projected every where. But apparently we are now to believe that Official Science has abandoned this idea. In Mr. Calamai’s words the new, improved claim is a generic “climate change” under which “some parts of the world will warm and others cool, under certain assumptions” (his emphasis.) Talk about moving the goal posts! This hypothesis is meaningless. It could never be empirically tested since any change at all, even opposite events, can be equally cited as supporting evidence.



If this is what “climate change” really means, then sensible debate is over. To think we went to all the work of writing a book to debunk global warming, only to find that its proponents had retreated off the field. And now we’re being criticized for saying the IPCC is still even worried about global warming. It’s hard to keep up."

I think the author of that article really has to brush up on climetology and science in general.

Unlike theology the goal posts in science are always in flux. As new evidence is discovered theories are adjusts.

"Global Warming" has never meant that everyplace will continually get warmer and warmer. If that's what the author thought then he is wrong. Mr. Calamai is not moving the goal post, he just telling you where it has always been.

Most people who argue against Global Warming are doing so from an ignorant viewpoint. The can't state the difference between weather and climate. They have never looked at the raw data that shows an overall rise in average global temperature.

Amongst the serious scientific community Global Warming is not in dispute. The only dispute is over the causes of Global Warming.