Discussions
Global Warming - What's your take on it?
Posted by AndyQpr • 6/06/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: environment, global warming, science, share
Hello everybody.
The global warming debate has been going on for a while now but I have the feeling it is only just the beginning.
What is your take on the whole situation? What should we do about it? Is the whole thing being exaggerated?
I would love to hear from you all !
You could alternatively check out the global warming posts on my blog : vop-say.co.cc and share your voice right there.
User Comments
-
I'm not entirely convinced that humans are playing a major role in the warming of the planet -- these changes have occurred throughout history and will continue to occur. I'm open to the idea, but we've only been around for so long and the earth is very old and these things happen.
However, we definitely have a harmful impact on our environment, and we need to cut back on our pollution. There's no denying that. -
LOL. I have ceased to care... or maybe I never did. It's definitely one or the other, though. -
I live in Idaho, I say bring it on and hurry up about it.-
offended, that is what Russian President Putin says too... "the world would maybe benefit from a few degrees increase in temperature" was the thrust of his statement.
I think there will be big winners and big losers. I guess Idaho wins. LOL Vermont loses, because snow brings in a lot of $$.
-
-
Global warming is what got me into blogging. I feel one of my jobs as a father is to prevent problems and warn my children when I foresee them. I guess that is two of my jobs.
I read the UN science report from Feb 7, 2007, giving an overview of the scientific evidence and theories that were reported to constitute "consensus of 2,000" scientists. I wrote to the MIT professor who is supposed to be the leading "skeptic" on global warming theories. He actually wrote back 3 times, answering questions and recommending directions for more information. I discussed it with the local awesome weatherman, who happens to be married to a coworker, and also is hard core into global warming a fact of life. All this is on my blog, of course.
I wrote to my US Senator, complaining that he not say "the debate is not over, like you are saying, please correct your public statements." He wrote back, letter ended up in the paper... I am trying to say, I did a lot to try getting to the bottom of all this.... I learned this is more complicated than I expected and I most definitely am no expert. Still, trying to be responsible to my children, I feel I need to put my stake in the ground and what I think is happening, to the best of my overall understanding and guessing...
BOTTOM LINE:
Not a Big Deal for 21st Century Climate
Nothing will happen fast. Overall, global warming is a minor problem, compared with population, war, existing famine, current storm levels, current water pressures, etc..
Sea level is rising. It will keep rising until it is at least 65 feet higher than now, in about 400 years. Greenland's ice sheet will survive the 21st century. Long, slow, steady, process. Low net-present-value. Not nearly as big a problem as over-dependence on oil.
Global Warming Could be Offset by Global Cooling
These charts suggest we likely will see huge temperature drop anytime now. In fact, it looks like we are 10-20 thousand years overdue for a massive temperature drop, like the ones shown in the green line of the 400 thousand year chart.
full size at: danallen.com/blurb.php?dogNow=450
For reference, this is the hockey-stick chart, showing the rapid heating since the start of the 20th century.
full size at:
danallen.com/blurb.php?dogNow=378-
Thanks for the great comment. You are very knowledgable.
www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=45711&st=952&start=952
This is a great forum and I have given you a link to the 'The great global warming debate' thread. There is always activity on that thread and it is always great to express your opinion and also learn more from others. -
First of all, I work with the UN so just pronounce it like you would with the un-cola. Second, the 2000 scientists - you better check more closely - less than 10% of that 200 were scientists, the rest were politicians and activists. -
barryfromtexas - Is that for the IPCC/UN 2007 Report as to which you are speaking.
So, the majority of the people who peer assessed the report were politics and activists who produced the report policies?
-
-
Probably global warming is a misnomer. It is more that all of the waste that we are producing, is adversely affecting our health, the weather, and the overall stability of the biosphere. There are huge portions of the ocean that have become dead, and the Ocean doesn't like it. The earth will survive - I have no doubt. Humans. Well, hopefully they figure it out. Otherwise the roaches are there, anxiously waiting, to take our place.
-
If you have to ask about climate change and think the debate is only just beginning, I have to wonder where you've been these past many years.
-
I understand the debate has been going on for many years but as you know, our understanding of the climate is still very premature and it will take 10's of years for us to firm up our knowledge.
From researching Global Warming for a few months,I too have realised it is much more complicated.
What I do know is that the media reflects a biased opinion. If you are a sceptic, you are slated for it. Whatever the underlying truth is, we still should be told the real truths.
Thankyou for posting misterDog, a great comment. However, the Greenland ice shelf will last alot longer than the 21st century. It is quite well established that it will take millenia for the ice sheet to completely melt going on current predictions.
I also like how the hockey stic graph ignores the Medieval Climatic Optimum and the Little Ice Age ... perhaps historic data lies ... I am not sure.
Keep the debate up guys! At the end of the day, all we want is the truth, with nothing mascaraded at all.-
AndyQpr, thank you for the great comments. Right on about looking for the truth, that is what this is about.
Regarding the Greenland ice sheet, what about those holes where the water is crashing from the surface and gushing to the bottom, making the ice melt faster than previously calculated? It was my impression that situation was challenging previous calculations of the ice sheet's life expectancy. If there is firm evidence proving the ice sheet will be here in a 1000 years, that would definitely influence my prediction about sea level! :-)
I love trying to play scientist, even though I know I am unqualified. lol
-
-
Or the ants. I think it is real, but I think it is a bit overblown. I think we have to act in a way that makes it easy for people to follow. The whole problem with the environmental movement is that they ask you to do a lot of weird impractical things. The job is to make it easy for people to do things which will help.-
And we need to make it easy to understand. But that's hard, because we want to establish a connection between our senses and the science. But that's not gonna happen, just like it doesn't in so many other areas of science.
-
yea, just like only computer specialists could understand the mysteries of the Y2K problem.
-
Not a good analogy. There we were talking about a little of code, not something as complex as a global ecosystem and many billion people.
-
-
TimeThief posted a ton of resources in the comments to this post:
markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/why-skepticism-about-global-warming/
The only debate about whether there is climate change or not caused by humans is happening outside the scientific community. Scientists are researching and debating the particulars, not the phenomenon itself.-
@Mark
Here we go again. There are 48 pages of discussion on this topic on the BC forum www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/search.php?q=global warming -
Yeah, but I'm not going to go again. Just had my say and that's that for this thread.
-
markstoneman, answer me this... how is it that you figure yourself to know better than MIT's top climate scientist whether there is debate within the scientific community on this topic? He's debating it. Are you saying he is not a scientist? You aren't going to disrespect yourself by asking for names and sources, are you?
Let's just try being humans here, you and me and all the readers, and you please explain how you are a better authority on this topic than Richard Lindzen at MIT? I am extremely curious to know your answer to this one.
-
I tend to disagree with you markstoneman. What you are failing to remember is that yes, global average temparatures are increasing but that is by no means suggesting that our climate is changing dramatically.
The whole overall understanding is still being debated. We cannot be having a huge global debate every time the global temperatures increase or decrease. For example, during the period between 1940 and 1980 when global temperatures decreased, global cooling was a big scare and that was a longer period of sustained cooling than what has occured now.
All I'm really tyring to say is ... it is still being debated. Yes, there is a general consensus that global SURFACE temperatures have increase in the last 15 years, however, this does not certainly mean it is climate change. -
Careful there AndyQpr, stoneman has 48 pages of posts on Blog Catalog PROVING he is right.
I am surprised the UN is bothering to even look into this anymore, with the definitive information already available free here at BC.
-
-
Meh.
-
misterDog.
Jonathan Gregory, a climatologist at the University of Reading, UK, says global warming could start runaway melting on Greenland within 50 years, and it will "probably be irreversible this side of a new ice age". The only good news is that it a total meltdown is likely to take at least 1000 years.
An extract from one of the many subjects about the Greenland Ice Shelf.
That is what is one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding GW, it is not nailed on, even our understanding of the climate itself is far from nailed on. The computer models used to make predictions are based on inputted process by humans who have a limited knowleged of the climate, so the data is incomplte and not fully accurate, so to think this theory is correct, asking NO questions at all is wrong. The theory may be correct, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't question it at all.
Science is a wonderful subject, I am only touching the tips of it but it is a great subject and satisfying in so many different ways as many areas of Science are not certain, and we can continue to build up the picture as time goes by. -
Whether there or not their is a real global warming crisis, it doesn't hurt now to start being more green now.-
Now that we can all agree on =]
-
-
I've studied environmental issues for over 10 years & one thing is imminently clear; When nature goes up against money, nature will always lose. People are so caught up in their insecurities that they'll even sell the planet down the river. I'm often ashamed to call myself a human.-
It's scary that people are the way you are saying. I think our hope lies in online communication like this, leading people getting aligned on doing what we all see is needed. It's going to be hard, but we have to do it, at least try starting the process. That is my belief, makes me feel less guilty for the food I eat and the oil I burn.
-
-
watch the movie of Al gore the vice president of US. That was a 2005 movie. Global warming was explain there very widely. The title is "the inconvenient truth" very good movie, very helpful and it won 2 oscars I think.-
Thankyou for your post kaguvkov.
Everybody has seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' and although it tried, it is scattered with bad science,flawed statements and exaggerative lies.
Furthermore, Gore is a hypocrite and doesn't practice what he preaches.He wants us to live greener. I do not have a car, use energy and green efficient appliances, walk and cycle most places,and if not I use public transport and I live in a modest 2 bedroomed house. Even if it is definately CO2 emmisions which are causing the increase in global temperatures, why does he talk as if I am the problem. Perhaps he should stop travelling on his personal jet and driving his SUV to preach about this matter.
I think it is anabsolute discgrace that 'An Incovenient Truth' has been shown in schools. -
"An Inconvienient Truth" was nothing more than a marketing ploy by Al Gore so he could sell "carbon credits"
www.algore.org/node/403
www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
CO2 is not a cause of global warming in the slightist. That has alredy been discounted by science. All it does is make plants grow better.
-
-
interesting article here
Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change (Updated)
The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not entirely man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html-
That actually adds up - considering Mars' polar caps are melting, unless people want to blame that on a couple of tiny landers
-
-
The sun has and always will be the major driver of the Earth's climate and anything that the sun does can override any other effects.
The pattern of solar activity linked to temperature has linked near-on perfect throughout history and fits the pattern just as well as the C02 pattern does, yet solar activity is dismissed by the IPCC as a potential cause. If not, it is just one of the biggest ever natural coincidences.
The IPCC haven't even taken natural effects into the equation, such as solar activity, so to blame all of the warming on CO2 is very premature as it is more likely that warming from CO2 only contributes a small part to the warming.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
