whats your opinion on Global Warming...
hot topic these days... Despite having a degree in evironmental science (actually Water Resources Management, whith minors in Wetlands and Soils), I will be the first to admit that I know very little when it comes down to solid facts about global warming.
Unfortunately, i also have to admit that I have gone along with the flow... without doing my own research, i have assumed that all or most scientist agree that man is to blame for global warming. while i have always had a problem with some of the media's portrayal of the earth's destruction in as little as 13 years... i am/was a little concerned about the future of our society. Ok... so now i have been doing more reading and finding out that there are scientists out there (and im not talking wacky conservative extreamists) who dont believe that man is to blame for global warming... and that changes in the temperature is constantaly changing... they have plenty of evidence to back it up. even some 'environmentalists' who, while are for protecting our earth, still dont believe in global warming. To be honest, i dont think that Sheryl Crowe or Leo D. have any more knowledge of global warming than you or me... and i certainly believe that the media likes to (not only this topic) run storys that seem to "stretch the truth" for ratings.. so just because my local news guy says that the earth is going to overheat in 15 years, doesnt mean its true... and just because Sheryl tells me to use 1 square to wipe my *** doesnt mean that it will change the environment. anyways.. i find it interesting that this is such a party-line topic... i dont know any liberals who dont believe in global warming and i dont know any conservatives who DO believe in it... and each side is soo set in stone on thier beliefs they are not open to the fact that there may be some middle ground, or willing to accept that they may possibly be wrong. so... any brave souls want to chime in on thier thoughts? |
I am currently in a class working with global warming and taught by an environmental economist. Other than this, my only sources of information have been my own research.
By her account, and those I have read, most reputable scientists believe humans have affected the earth's climate. The debate now is how significant our impact is/how much GHG corresponds to how much warming corresponds to what actual effects. There is no question that there is more GHG in there air than otherwise would be, and when looking at 1000 year world temperature charts, most people will agree that current temperatures are spiking much more quickly and going much higher than they did during the natural fluctuations in the past. *shrug* |
2 Attachment(s)
Are humans to blame for global warming? You bet. Humans are, by nature, pollutive creatures from day one. We create waste whether is was the air pollution created by fire made by a human 10,000 years ago, or the emissions from a tailpipe of some SUV stopped at a suburban intersection.
Can we slow down global warming? Most likely. Can we ever stop it? I don't think so. Especially with 6.5 billion people on this planet. It would be a fantastic accomplishment if someone could figure out a way where all humans could stop making harmful emissions. I feel that we just have to deal with what's in store for us. Polar ice caps melt? Okay, so animals went extinct (polar bears would drown for example) and a sizeable portion of the worlds coasts would be flooded, but we'd deal. I found this image a few weeks back at www.thatimagesite.com. It's certainly false as it has no real measurement, sources or references. I think the humour is noteworthy though (and reinforces how I believe most of society feels about Global Warming): Attachment 488 |
Quote:
so you are 100% certain that the 1 degree (think thats what it is) increase in temperature in the past 100 years is certainly from man? do you think there is a chance that it is part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth? honest questions. not flaming. "most of society feels about global warming" really? i kinda feel like everyone has just accepted it as fact without really knowing too much about it... and the only ones who question it are Rush Limbaugh fans... I despise Rush. its on both sides of the fence. there are extreame conservatives who just accept anything he says as fact.. and there are those that accept anything Gore says as fact. neither are scientist. |
this is just my dumb uneducated opinion, but i dont think it really is going to be global warming as much as it is going to be meteorological altering.
|
im conservative and i belive there is global warming. my dad on the outher hand dosent. its sad it pretty obvious
|
Quote:
now im finding that not all scientists agree on this... and they certainly dont agree with this doomsday philosiphy that we are all going to die and that NYC will be under water in 10 years. im not saying that it doesnt exist... im just starting to question it a bit more.. |
I think there is some globle warming. I think we have a problem. I dont think its as bad as they say. I think we need to address it. I dont think we need to get freaky deaky over it.
Some folks IMO are way over reacting much the way a normal driver over reacts about,,,, say,,, or mpg driving tatctics or mods. psy |
Quote:
First, let me say that I am undecided, but skeptical on the issue of human activity induced global warming. However, I do believe that humans are changing the environment rapidly, and without knowing the exact consequences of those changes...especially the developing world. That said, I do have a few questions to share...not looking for a flame war, but have never gotten what feels like an honest answer when I have asked instructors/academics directly. Heck, when I was a student in Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University I got kicked out of a class for asking the first couple...so much for debate and learning. :-) 1) What is the definition of global warming? 2) What is the baseline figure used when measuring the extent of global warming? 3) What are the natural cycles, and all natural factors and their in influence on global temperatures? 4) What is the margin of error when determining temperatures in the past? 5) What is meant by "a reputable scientist"? (this keeps popping up all over the place) 6) Who actually decides that a scientist is reputable? 7) What percentage of scientists that believe that humans are responsible for global warming are considered "reputable" versus the scientists that do not believe that humans are responsible? 8) What happened to scientific debate in this matter? (if someone disagrees, they are immediately labeled and dismissed) 9) Is the link between Green House Gases and Global Warming still a scientific theory, or has it progressed to scientific law? 10) What should be done to reduce global warming? 11) What steps have the scientists personally undertaken based on #10? 12) (personal pet peeves) If Kyoto is a good idea, why are developing countries allowed to continue to increase their production of GHG's? 13) (personal pet peeves) Aren't GHG's that are emitted from "developed" countries just as harmful as GHG's emitted by "developing" countries? <end rambling mode> |
Quote:
7a) How many scientists have gone from being considered "reputable" to not-"reputable" because they have stopped supporting the theory of Global Warming? And how about vice-versa? |
just saw this today:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c..._id=&Issue_id= worth a read. i appreciate everyone's comments & keeping this topic 'friendly' :) like rvanengen, i guess i am undecided at this point. just trying to gather more infomation and learn more. |
Quote:
|
I'm glad this post came up. It will get people looking into it and they will form their own opinions. Some maybe surprised at what they find. I tend to look at it this way. Does it really matter if man's to blame or if it's sun spots? If it is just the earth doing its thing can't the things we do locally help globally. If you live in a large metropolitan area it hard to dispute that the air quality and cases of respiratory illness has increased. So if we cut down on pollutants and oil energy use via better emmisions, green energy and recycling. Where's the loss. This is a capitalist society we will adjust.
|
Quote:
When we go to visit my wife's relatives in Ukraine and Russia, the difference in air quality is startling...they do not run ANY emissions controls, and frequently are still running aging Soviet-era equipment, and the workers have tremendous health problems. That said, I do NOT yet believe that we have a crisis based on Global Warming. I DO believe we have a pollution crisis! China is starting to feel the effects of their rapid industrialization through a direct loss in usable farm land. I am trying to keep an open-mind to Global Warming, but it has seemed like a highly political issue, and not a scientific one. |
Some links from the BBC on China's pollution problems
(I understand that pollution and GHG/GW are different issues...)
Global Impact of Asian Pollution: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6421303.stm China's pollution cuts local rain https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6441503.stm Yangtze pollution 'irreversible' https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6559407.stm China hit by rising air pollution https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5241844.stm And for all of this, China has had, and still wants to be allowed to contribute heavily to GHG's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_P...ublic_of_China (shrug) politics...politics...money and more money. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1. Most reports I have looked at will quote 1-5.9 c* increase over the next hundred years, with the mean being something around 2.X (I'm sorry I'm so lazy to look things up, but I've prolly ready 100+ global warming journal articles in the last month and don't know which one I would want to look for, :p)
2. Generally the last 2k years, though there are some that extend even further. 3. Most samples I believe are taken from ice cores in icy places, so it's certainly susceptible to local variety, but I think it's reliable enough for a guide, at least. Though there is a lot of controversy about past samples. 4. The real variations are probably quite severe. 5. Speaking often doesn't have anything to do with it, but doing critical, peer-reviewed analysis does. Rush Limbaugh speaks a lot, but I don't listen to him, mainly because the things he says are silly, :p 6. Hmm. 7. I couldn't remember if it was the IPCC or the UNFCCC, thanks. 8. As I said "there is still great debate about the effects..." 10. This is where it turns into a political debate and not an environmental one. 11. If it gives you any solace, walking through the environmental studies offices and study labs here you will see many bumper stickers such as "don't treat our soil like dirt" and many many professors/researchers primarily commute by bike/eat vegan. 12. It should be stopped there, but by people who have the means to stop it. Just like it is our responsibility to spend the money to share vaccines with the developing world, it is ours to help curb GHG emissions and give developing countries the technology to be clean in an affordable way (even if that means subsidizing it for them). This idea of helping developing countries develope sustainably is covered by CDM and JI in the KP. 13. PPP included, the difference is still to great to say that people who can't afford electricity should suffer economically to reduce GHG emissions. I would notice missing 1k too, but I wouldn't die if it were gone, that's the big difference. I support a system where the KP is phased in in accordance with GDP in PPP PC growth in developing countries, but I think it would be unethical to give too much of the burden to people who can't handle it right now. Those who can carry the weight shouldn't hand it off to those who can't just because they are lazy. Every nation should act in accordance with its ability. At least in my opinion. Anyway, I've seen reports saying GHG cuts will be the cheapest in the long run if the developed nations take on the brunt of the load. :p |
UNFCCC page on climate change: https://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...items/2904.php
I think they're a good source because there are so many scientists behind it and its very international (though not to utmost). Just a source... |
uh, I kinda got lost on thatimagesite, what were you sayin'? Is it getting warm in here?
|
One more question...where did the $1000 figure come from, how often is it to be collected, and by whom?
Personally, I would rather spend the $1000 on my family and making our living more efficient. :D Anyway... |
I said 1000 because it is more than quite a large amount of the world will make in a year, :p
|
Ok...and how is that money supposed to help the millions and billions of people live better? Is $1000 enough? Why not $10,000?
|
Why not 10,000? This isn't an ethical discussion though, it's sposed to be about global warming. If you want to bicker about our obligation to help others, start another thread, :p
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I go with the general scientific view that the earth is warming. There is plenty of graphs on the internet showing a correlation between co2 and temps. Several large chunks of antarctica broke off fairly recently too.
As for change. If peak oil is for real then I think people will have to stop driving and shipping good far distances and the earth will basically auto-correct itself. |
Quote:
This is why things like smog laws and the montreal protocol are so effective. You can breath smog and cough, see a hole in the ozone open up during certain days. Also, the things causing these issues are much easier to correct. Eliminating CFCs is easy compared to eliminating all fossil fuels. I spend too much time on this site and not writing my papers, :) |
Hello -
Good thread. From what I have read, the current media model for Global Warming is the same as the media model for smoking and cancer. Create doubt and plausible deniability for as long as you can. In peer-reviewed scientific journals, the only debate is the extent of global warming, not whether or not it is happening. On the other hand, in the conventional media that you and I consume, the argument is maybe 50/50 as to whether or not it is happening. Based on my information, there really isn't any doubt. We're just in ostrich mode, which is pretty normal for people. We'll change when we have to, but not before. CarloSW2 |
?!!
Quote:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...023esuice.html Check it out. show your dad. I would say NASA is a fairly reliable source... |
Quote:
I totally agree. Iv seen sites that claim it isn't happening at all! I also don't think we are the sole cause of the climatic change, but more than likely a contributor. Politics loves oil, and global warming says its bad, hence the denial. |
Quote:
For a quick read: Cleaner air makes brighter skies https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4520831.stm Not sure that I would like to see more pollution to offset the increasing levels of GHG's...but it is an idea that has been proposed. :eek: I think the more serious proposals have been seeing the upper atmosphere to not only repair the ozone layer, but to also cause a drop in temperatures. And just keep in mind that "dirty" power sources are a global problem, not only for GHG's: China hit by rising air pollution https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5241844.stm |
sorry...hard to type with a 2 year old bouncing off you.. .:-)
"I think the more serious proposals have been seeing the upper atmosphere to not only repair the ozone layer, but to also cause a drop in temperatures." should have been: "I think the more serious proposals have been seeding the upper atmosphere to not only repair the ozone layer, but to also cause a drop in temperatures." |
i'm a GW agnostic, but this info is pretty compelling against the argument that mankind is mostly to blame.
https://nov55.com/gbwm.html doubtful that anyone could read this comprehensively and deduct that there is NO legitimate science aposing the movement. |
Sure, the earth is warming. It'll warm more. Then it will cool. And then cool more.
I can't help but wonder about the tone of the conversation in the media as the next glaciers sweep down from the north and wipe clean everything down to the Nebraska latitudes. Who will get the blame for them? |
My opinion on it is that anytime I hear somebody say "the debate is over" and then force legislation on me at gun point, that usually indicates that the debate is not over and that somebody is trying to make a fast buck or gain power over me through chicanery.
Science is always about "debate". Even our soundest scientific theories can be challenged with new data. The debate is never over, otherwise it becomes dogma, the cornerstone of religion. My opinion about the data present is uncertain. The numbers have been so twisted by both sides of the question that it is nearly impossible to arrive at any conclusions, especially for a lay person like myself and most people in the world. The entire subject became highly politicized extremely early and it is thus difficult to tell truth from fiction, even with numbers backing up whatever position. Additionally, given the huge heating and cooling cycles the planet has and will continue to go through, it seems to me that we're suffering from a form of collective narcissism combined with paranoia in the rush to essentially shut down all Western economies through massive legislation. Simply put there is sooo much we don't know that it's nearly impossible to draw any conclusions at all about the topic. It may well be heating up, or not, but outside of that we know nothing from a hard data standpoint that cannot be refuted with other hard data. The jury is still out in my view. |
I've seen it twice in National Geographic...there's a natural cycle to cooling and warming as we all know, and it seemed to be trending towards a slight natural warming again. It seems to me that it means that natural cycle is probably playing a major role in it. The jury's still out on if/how much we're exacerbating it.
|
|
I want to stop real pollution and destruction of our environment. i don't 'believe' in global warming.
|
1. Somebody with multiple mansions flies in a private jet around the world to address a group of 100 who could have been talked to by conference call how I personally have to give up my material possessions to SAVE THE WORLD.
I'll believe in Global Warming Crisis when the people who are crying about a Global Warming Crisis start acting like there is a Global Warming Crisis. moral: The messengers lack credibility. 2. I do computer modeling for a living. NONE of the global climate models that are the basis for ALL predictions of doom are have been validated by reality. The assumptions (and remember what your mother told you when you assume) are not supported by field research. Often, the reality is exactly the opposite of assumptions the Global Warming models were based on. They cannot predict past climates. Why should I believe their predictions of the future? 3. The Global Warming Crisis claims that the Earth's climate is spinning out of control. When was it ever under control? What is the standard for defining Earth's "normal" climate? The week they held Woodstock in 1969? For most of the Earth's history, it had NO ice caps. At some points in its history, it has been frozen over its entire surface. DO NOT tell me that the climate is "spinning out of control" until you can show me what the normal is supposed to be. 4. The Earth hasn't warmed up in 10 years despite the fact that the dreaded so-called GHG have been increasing. How long does it take to figure out that the Anthropogenic Global Warming predictions are completely and utterly wrong? Answer: Never. Predictions are always right when you start with the conclusion and torture or exclude the evidence to fit it. 5. The two goals of the Glowball Warmists hysterics always turns into acquiring power and money. Absolute total state control off EVERYTHING. Gee, could this be why the politicians are piling onto the bandwagon. My opinion about Climate Change? Yes, it is. It always has. Just like tides, earthquakes and orbital mechanics, we're just along for the ride. Adapt or die. I always thought socialism was the biggest hoax foisted on the Earth. I was wrong. The depressing thing is that even if the AGW hoax is put down, there will in all likelihood just be another behind it. There are just too many people willing to believe anything. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.