Okay sort of new question, If global warming is happening why will this be bad?(at least in small amounts) would new grounds be available for food? What are some ways we could use this to an advantage? I don't know the science about why climate change is so bad or whatnot. Enlighten me.

I think global warming does exist, but I think that it's only a natural part of the Earth's climate rather than some disaster created by mankind.

sneakypenguin:
Okay sort of new question, If global warming is happening why will this be bad?(at least in small amounts) would new grounds be available for food? What are some ways we could use this to an advantage? I don't know the science about why climate change is so bad or whatnot. Enlighten me.

There's no controlled way to have global warming, where you can just have a steady higher third degress, as a result of human activity. That's the first reason.

Secondly, ecological change can have sudden breaking points, as I recall, the current science belives that if we increase the global temperature by more than five to seven degrees (I believe we are at three) a number of things which have the chance to cause an acceleration of the trend can occur, including desertification of forested areas, decreased humidity leading to top soil erosion, again leading to less plant life, and the release of trapped gasses within pockets of antarctic ice.

Scientists are uncertain exactly how likely any of these things are, but there's at least a good chance of them, and any of them would be a disaster of fairly epic proportions.

Global warming?

Nah.

Natural reoccurring cycle. Like an ice age, but we're just at the other end of it.

EDIT:
Ohdang, and there's a post like mine just above meh. c.c;;

geldonyetich:
"Man made global warming myth?"

No, it was made by aliens, or possibly sea lions - those sea lions whine a lot.

Strictly speaking, it's no myth. Global warming means both hotter summers and cooler winters, which confuses some people. However, the sea level has been steadily rising, causing a lot of trouble, because global warming actually is successfully melting the icecaps. The main people who are fighting global warming are largely big-business interests who realize the overwhelming costs involved in reversing global warming would likely bankrupt them.

*sob*, when your probloms are to much water, here i israel we are in a DROUGHT!
Totaly unfair

SnowCold:
*sob*, when your problems are to much water, here i israel we are in a DROUGHT!

Totaly unfair

According to this document, Israel has flooding problems too, but the water is in the wrong place! Hopefully things will improve soon.

Just look at their spokesperson Al Gore who is an idiot on the subject. No I do not think man creates global warming, yes humans do cause problems but there is no proof we cause temperature increases and in fact the planet has been warmer in other times in history.

I don't see what difference it makes if man made it or not, surely either way it needs to be at the very least understood, otherwise we cannot ensure the surivival of mankind.

Water vapor is actually the largest green house gas and we can't do anything about it so we blame it on CO2 (aka us) and the more water evaporates the hotter it gets and then evaporates quicker its a cycle and we're due for a climate change. Humans are speeding it but not causing it.

PatientGrasshopper:
Just look at their spokesperson Al Gore who is an idiot on the subject. No I do not think man creates global warming, yes humans do cause problems but there is no proof we cause temperature increases and in fact the planet has been warmer in other times in history.

Well...first of all Al Gore isn't "an idiot on the subject;" no, he's not a scientist, but most anti-global-warming activists aren't either, and I've heard actual scientists complain about how Gore just wouldn't stop asking them questions about climate change. And anyway, one person's knowledge of it doesn't go anywhere towards refuting it.

There's lots of proof we can cause temperature increases--we've already caused one--and the planet has been warmer relatively recently, but the recent change in C02 is just ridiculous. If the past is any indication, the temperature will soon follow the C02 concentration up that giant spike.

TehCookie:
Water vapor is actually the largest green house gas and we can't do anything about it so we blame it on CO2 (aka us) and the more water evaporates the hotter it gets and then evaporates quicker its a cycle and we're due for a climate change. Humans are speeding it but not causing it.

It's actually the other way around. Water is the most important greenhouse gas, but it was relatively constant; then we put lots of C02 in the atmosphere, the temperature increased, more water evaporated, and the temperature increased more. Water vapor is creating somewhat of a positive feedback loop, amplifying the effects of our C02 emissions.

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, yes. It also cycles out of the air regularly. When it starts raining diamonds, you can compare water vapor to CO2 with regard to AGW.

The climate has changed before, naturally, yes. However, none of the reasons why the temperature increased before are in evidence now, with the exception of CO2 concentrations increasing. It's the same logical fallacy as saying "Every dog I've seen today has been black. Therefore, that black thing ahead of me with feathers, beak, and two legs must be a dog." Does that prove that we're causing it? No.. but there's no other credible explanation out there right now, that's the problem.

It is important to deal with because not because of sea-level rise particularly, but because the growing instability will cause serious hardships to our food supply through increased drought and flooding in local areas, and because mobile organisms, such as bugs, pests, and various types of virii and bacteria, will be able to use the changes in temperature to expand their territory much more quickly than crops will.

It will not damage our economy because controlling carbon dioxide is controlling waste. Controlling waste is the definition of efficiency. Efficiency helps our economy, it doesn't hinder it. It will change our economy, this is true, but our economy is currently getting set to undergo a lot of change anyway. Saying that controlling CO2 will significantly harm the non-renewable energy industry so we shouldn't do it is like saying the creation of the automobile will significantly harm buggy makers, so we shouldn't do it.

Remember that our economy is based on labor. Doing things cleanly is a hell of a lot of work. That's why poor countries generally don't do it, they spend enough of their labor trying to survive. It requires developed countries, which have a surplus of resources they can direct to the task to accomplish action. But, a requirement for more labor means more jobs, more work, more economic success.. not less.

It's a natural thing, only humans have sped it up.
If it wasn't a natural thing, we'd be still in an ice age!

And even if it is man-made it doesnt make a bit of a difference because US, China and Russia dont give a damn. Greenies please stop being overly-optimistic about making somekind of worldwide pact that will fix the problem and stop trying to give us those blasted weak wind turbines. Bring in the nuculear power!

I have run across several studies saying that initially, we will see a net gain in human lives due to fewer deaths caused by cold exposure. Plus, initially, arable land and growing seasons will increase, so there will be a greater food supply. But, as someone already said above, this is only temporary as we could quickly hit some unknown tipping point of no return, then things start to get ugly. But, be prepared for the "global warming is better" arguments in the years ahead. I do think green folks are entirely too optimistic, as I have next to zero faith in people making personal sacrifices for the common good (NIMBY issues are very real). So, the folks will adapt and overcome as we always have, with the greatest burden being dumped on the poor, so in other words, business as usual...

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx Another dissenting article about man made global warming

sneakypenguin:
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx Another dissenting article about man made global warming

Two points. First, dissent in and of itselt doesn't prove anything. There are people who still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. You have to examine the arguments they bring forward. In this case, the argument being presented is "Well I don't believe it."

Second, the guy dissenting isn't an expert. He's a weather-man on CNN for goodness sakes. He's got about as much relationship to a climatologist as a car salesman has to an automotive engineer. Which one do you trust to say your car is safely designed?

I don't think whether its real or caused by us is important. Fact is we're going to run out of fossil fuels in the next 30-40 years. Its in our best interests as a race to try and conserve what we have so we have can maximise our time to come up with an alternative energy source.

PsyberGoth:

sv93:
Can you add an option like "Man didn't make it, but they aren't helping to get rid of it" ? Then, and only then, shall I vote.

Agreed.

Basically, Global Warming is a natural process. Mankind, however, with our excess pollution, are merely speeding up the process.

Agreed. If ice formed somewhere where there is also water (meaning temperatures above freezing), it naturally follows that said ice would melt. This, in turn, seems like it would raise the water levels (if enough of it melted).

Anyway, the ice up North is melting. This is a measurable fact. I do not, however, believe humans can ever stop what is referred to as "Global Warming." Not only to I think it simply isn't possible, it's extremely unlikely like mankind would ever work together well enough to accomplish this on the off chance it WAS possible. I also don't buy into the stupid garbage associated with Global Warming, like buying Carbon offsets or driving Hybrids.

Chilango2:

Secondly, ecological change can have sudden breaking points, as I recall, the current science belives that if we increase the global temperature by more than five to seven degrees (I believe we are at three) a number of things which have the chance to cause an acceleration of the trend can occur, including desertification of forested areas, decreased humidity leading to top soil erosion, again leading to less plant life, and the release of trapped gasses within pockets of antarctic ice.

Just to add to this, the worlds rain forests are carbon sinks. They are sucking in a lot of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans and reducing the effect of global warming. Particularly the Amazon. If they stop getting the heavy rainfall they need the trees there die, and the chances of them going up in a giant inferno increase dramatically. Even without a fire, the decaying vegetation will release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, accelerating the entire process. So basically, there is a run-away point, once that point is reached it is all down-hill and there is nothing we can do to stop the world from undergoing environmental upheaval.

This may seem a bit of an odd point but people are always saying sea levels are rising due to melting ice.

Now take some ice and put it in a glass the fill the glass to the brim with water now leave it for a day and watch the ice melt. Does the the glass overflow? no it doesnt because water expands as it freezes so as it melts it contracts . so if all the ice melts the sea level stays the same it isn't extra water thats taking up less space by being a solid. Also you cannot create carbon you can just move it around.

the world temperature has increased .75 of 1 degree in the last 100 years there is no reason to believe it will continue to increase in fact 2007 was the coldest year in recent history so I could make an arguement that the world is getting colder if I really wantd to be pedantic.

falcontwin:
This may seem a bit of an odd point but people are always saying sea levels are rising due to melting ice.

Now take some ice and put it in a glass the fill the glass to the brim with water now leave it for a day and watch the ice melt. Does the the glass overflow? no it doesnt because water expands as it freezes so as it melts it contracts . so if all the ice melts the sea level stays the same it isn't extra water thats taking up less space by being a solid. Also you cannot create carbon you can just move it around.

No. This is seriously flawed. The ice in question isn't already on the water, the ice they are talking about is land-locked ice in Antarctica. Antarctica is a big continent, and the ice there has an average thickness of over a mile, all of that on land (the sea ice is generally only a few tens of metres thick at most). So basically, get an ice-cube and suspend it over a glass of water, then wait for that ice to melt. Sea levels will rise.

falcontwin:
the world temperature has increased .75 of 1 degree in the last 100 years there is no reason to believe it will continue to increase in fact 2007 was the coldest year in recent history so I could make an arguement that the world is getting colder if I really wantd to be pedantic.

There is reason, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased along with the temperature. Carbon dioxide is proven to cause global warming, not just here but on other planets too.

Also, I really don't think you appreciate just how big a 0.75 degree increase actually is. Get a swimming pool full of water, and try to heat up all of that water by 1 degree. Try it with a hairdryer or something. Heating up enough for a cup of coffee takes quite a few joules, to heat up an entire pool takes several thousand more. To raise the temperature of an entire planet? Imagine the size of the pool heater you would need for that, also at the (relatively) break-neck speed of a single century. Only a super-volcano or comet collision can do as much damage, and we are all blissfully ignorant on how destructive they are.

Kwil:

sneakypenguin:
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx Another dissenting article about man made global warming

Second, the guy dissenting isn't an expert. He's a weather-man on CNN for goodness sakes. He's got about as much relationship to a climatologist as a car salesman has to an automotive engineer. Which one do you trust to say your car is safely designed?

Hmm, using your "car salesman" logic, why the hell should I listen to Al Gore? Where exactly did he get his climatologist doctorate?

cuddly_tomato:
[quote="falcontwin" post="18.79788.1063292"]This may seem a bit of an odd point but people are always saying sea levels are rising due to melting ice.

Now take some ice and put it in a glass the fill the glass to the brim with water now leave it for a day and watch the ice melt. Does the the glass overflow? no it doesnt because water expands as it freezes so as it melts it contracts . so if all the ice melts the sea level stays the same it isn't extra water thats taking up less space by being a solid. Also you cannot create carbon you can just move it around.

No. This is seriously flawed. The ice in question isn't already on the water, the ice they are talking about is land-locked ice in Antarctica. Antarctica is a big continent, and the ice there has an average thickness of over a mile, all of that on land (the sea ice is generally only a few tens of metres thick at most). So basically, get an ice-cube and suspend it over a glass of water, then wait for that ice to melt. Sea levels will rise.

Well, I think people use Archimedes Principle (ice in water) to shoot down arguments that sea level change will be 20+ feet. Most climate change scientist have backed off that claim, realizing that in reality it is probably more like 2 feet.

Man made or not, I just have no faith that people are going to pull together and solve this. I shift back and forth on this issue, but ultimately, I have settled on the side that we need to concentrate on mitigating the effects of climate change, and not waste money on false hope in stopping it. People are selfish creatures. You can tell them that nuclear power plants will save the world, but try and build one where they can see it from their home, and they will freak out and fight it tooth and nail. NIMBY issues will ultimately kill any attempt to make any meaningful cuts. So the rich (see: white) will get richer, and the poor (see: black) will get poorer. Nations like the U.K and U.S. are wealthy enough to shield their people, but poorer nations are going to crumble.

A lot of greenhouse gases come from volcanoes or cows. The latter being our fault

SkinnySlim:
Hmm, using your "car salesman" logic, why the hell should I listen to Al Gore? Where exactly did he get his climatologist doctorate

Who said you should? Get off your ass and go read some real peer-reviewed scientific journals. Get your knowledge from the people who are producing the actual science, not any of the talking heads you see in the newspapers. The only use for them is to point out a topic that might be interesting enough to have some actual science done with it.

Kwil:

SkinnySlim:
Hmm, using your "car salesman" logic, why the hell should I listen to Al Gore? Where exactly did he get his climatologist doctorate

Who said you should? Get off your ass and go read some real peer-reviewed scientific journals. Get your knowledge from the people who are producing the actual science, not any of the talking heads you see in the newspapers. The only use for them is to point out a topic that might be interesting enough to have some actual science done with it.

Hmm, get off my ass? Would holding a B.S. in Environmental Science be getting off my ass enough? People who say that the debate is over and categorize scientists with dissenting opinions as wack jobs understand science about as well as I understand swahili. There are plenty of credible sources (peer reviewed) that provide a convincing argument that there is more to climate change than human activity. John Coleman, Patrick Moore, and Bjorn Lomborg all have compelling arguments that are ignored because it is not the "popular" view. Either way, this is all going to end in a bitter lesson for everyone, man made or not...

It's well known (to the knowing ones) that the climate changes over the years. Sure, mankind may have speed it up a notch but we have by no means caused it. If there's one thing many scientists agree on it's that eventually theres going to be a new "Ice age" and we *Mankind* Can't do jack about it, nor could we do anything about our climate changes.

Look at this way. Compare how much dirtier all the industry were 50 - 100 years ago to how "dirty" the industry is today, yet the climate is changing ever as quick. Either we caused it and it's to late to do anything or it's just natural.

Fell free to contradict me, but be warned, discovery/science channel are my favorites.

Edit: I'm a sucker for science!
Edit X2: Happy 300th post to me!

3 things
1:I picked the 6th one.
2:These things happen to the earth for 1000s of years.The earth will make it past the human age.
3: people have said that in the next 20-40 years the earth will end dew to this problem for,well... 50 years.Now has our good old earth failled us yet,I think not.
And another thing: If its true,at least I will get that sun tan I always wanted.

i believe that yes global warming is currently happening as it will occur during the earth's natural cycle of heating and cooling. i'm currently still skeptical about whether or not humans truly are causing the earth's climate to go absolute batshit.

it is still a theory and we are stil gathering data.

We aren't causing global warming, it would happen anyway, but we are speeding up our impending doom. The scientists seem to blame the weather on global warming whether it gets hotter, colder, wetter, dryer... It's all speculation really but we could of course all be burned to a crisp in 20 years time.

DamienHell:

sneakypenguin:

DamienHell:
Look at the numbers, CO2 causes global warming, humans pump a CRAP LOAD of CO2 into the air. Humans caused global warming

alright since no one looks at links and such(we are lazy ha)
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another....Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so...Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ

That's just two quotes I can bring up articles that agree to.

Yes yes, every scientist in the world being payed off makes more sense than just those two. Theres a pascals wager about global warming, I don't remeber the name of the video but it basically said. If we act to counter global warming, and we're wrong, no big loss. But if its true and we DON'T act, we're boned. I have no intention of argueing whether global warming is true or not. So don't try and start a pointless debate.

So no big loss if there are caps on Carbon Dioxide use? No big loss to people with jobs that supposedly contribute to Global Warming? No big loss to the economy from cutbacks and regulations on development? No big loss to people forced to change everything they've invested in because some big wig scientist says so? I'm not talking to you directly, just addressing the video quote. The facts on global warming are this, There is no way to measure the global temperature by means other than by satellite. It is impossible to predict with any kind of accuracy the exact temperature of the world even 50 years ago.

"Paleoclimatology," is not an accurate way to look at ancient temperatures. I for one, am not going to go through drastic change and economic hell just because some guy thinks the rings on a fir tree in north England say the temperature was colder 1,000 years ago. And if we cannot know the previous temperatures we cannot say that the average is higher now then it was back then. In 2007, It was stated that the temperature was a startling 1 degree higher than the past hundred years, despite the fact that we don't know what the temperature was a hundred years ago. In 2008, the average world temperature was LOWER than it has been for the past hundred years.

Oh and as for the images of ice calving off of glaciers, that's been going on for as long as we can remember, it isn't anything new. A recent study conducted in the North Atlantic found that a previously dormant line of underwater volcanoes were active again, and that was a big contributor to the increase in sea temperature and the melting of ice.

Finally, saying that humans polluting the air is having an effect on sea temperature is a big load of bullsh**. The air does not warm the sea, it is vice versa. Also, numerous hurricanes and weather events have been blamed on "Global Warming," however this couldn't be further from the truth. Weather, particularly storms, burn off heat in the atmosphere, keeping the Earth at a constant temperature. Much of the "scientific" research that has gone into Global Warming is nothing more than political scaring. Companies that advertise "Carbon Credits" do little with the money received. And as for Al Gore, if he is so concerned with people using too much electricity, why does his house in Tennessee use as much as 238 regular homes?

nikomas1:
It's well known (to the knowing ones) that the climate changes over the years. Sure, mankind may have speed it up a notch but we have by no means caused it. If there's one thing many scientists agree on it's that eventually theres going to be a new "Ice age" and we *Mankind* Can't do jack about it, nor could we do anything about our climate changes.

Look at this way. Compare how much dirtier all the industry were 50 - 100 years ago to how "dirty" the industry is today, yet the climate is changing ever as quick. Either we caused it and it's to late to do anything or it's just natural.

Fell free to contradict me, but be warned, discovery/science channel are my favorites.

Edit: I'm a sucker for science!
Edit X2: Happy 300th post to me!

Well done man, since 40 years ago on the cover of time magazine there was a picture of an approaching glacier, and the title was about our impending doom since a new ice age was going to destroy all life.

PatientGrasshopper:
Just look at their spokesperson Al Gore who is an idiot on the subject. No I do not think man creates global warming, yes humans do cause problems but there is no proof we cause temperature increases and in fact the planet has been warmer in other times in history.

It's called Global Climate Change now.

Remember in the 70's that people thought it would cause a new ice age, that was because we were still learning what it was, then changed to warming, but since we still didn't completely grasp it and it was a confusing name they changed it to global climate change, short term it can get colder, long term it will get warmer.