Global Warming; Fact or Fiction

[12th Doctor]

Yes, I do think that the threat is exaggerated. Still, that's a rather moot point. If it happens, even if it's in a more distant future, it must still be dealt with, in some way. And it's better to be one step ahead of things...

I agree. It is like the war on terrorism.

The war on terror is a proven threat, Global warming isn't...recently we had some record low temps. this winter...

It even stopped Gore from giving a Global Warming Speech...doesn't seem ironic that Gore was going to talk about Global Warming and it turned out to be a record breaking cold day?

where you live? I hope it is not some small town in PA because then seriously - you have nothing to worry about when it comes to war on terror.

I do live in a small town, but I go to school in the middle of a city.

One might perhaps worry about people other than oneself?

That's a good point Gus.  I don't think that I will be the victim of a terrorist attack anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that I don't care about it.

[Chiahead]

The only problem I have with rainforest depletion is that it isn't very efficient...the soil in a rainforest is very poor in nutrients to begin with and really isn't prime growing material...

An idea one of my professors had was to harvest the oceans for food, for all the starving populations...we actually only use less than 1 percent of the ocean for food purposes.  Seaweed dogs!

[??????????]

IF you want me to really confuse you listen to this. Global Warming would actually creat Global cooling. I have read a few things about this and a few "scholars" have come to this conclusion. While it is true that the temperatures ARE indeed rising the increased heat would melt the ice at the poles. The cooler water flowing out from the North Pole into the Gulf stream would SLOW the Gulf stream down, thus the warm air that is now keeping Europe realitively thawed would cease, thuse creating another ice age for Europe and most of the Northern Hemisphere. I don't know if this is true, it's just something I read and it made a LOT of sense since the ocean currents have a bunch to do with weather patterns.

[angus]

IF you want me to really confuse you listen to this. Global Warming would actually creat Global cooling. I have read a few things about this and a few "scholars" have come to this conclusion. While it is true that the temperatures ARE indeed rising the increased heat would melt the ice at the poles. The cooler water flowing out from the North Pole into the Gulf stream would SLOW the Gulf stream down, thus the warm air that is now keeping Europe realitively thawed would cease, thuse creating another ice age for Europe and most of the Northern Hemisphere. I don't know if this is true, it's just something I read and it made a LOT of sense since the ocean currents have a bunch to do with weather patterns.

it has happened many times.  it will happen many more times.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/991202/991202-11.html

see also Nature July 29, 1999:  
RÜhlemann, C., Mulitza, S., MÜller, P. J., Wefer, G. & Zahn, R. Warming of the tropical Atlantic Ocean and slowdown of thermohaline circulation during the last deglaciation Nature  402, 511 (1999)

click here for pulp media article

this is a strange publication, by the way.  here's a sample:

Heinz Donations Go to Bush, Not Kerry, Newspaper Says (CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry's wife is an heir to the H.J. Heinz Co. fortune, but the company gives its money to Republicans - including George W. Bush -- the Boston Globe reported.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Climatic Changes would be a more accurate phrase than Global Warming.

[angus]

Climatic Changes would be a more accurate phrase than Global Warming.

doesn't sell add space as well

[muon2]

Climatic Changes would be a more accurate phrase than Global Warming.

doesn't sell add space as well

All too true.

Another factor in this debate is the very same issue that one can learn much about by following The Vorlon on the presidential race - statistics. There is a definite trend upward in global temperature, but the Earth has historical cycles that are larger than the current statistical trend. One cannot say with certainty whether man or natural cycles cause the current effects. We are hampered as well by applying detailed analysis to data that is far less well measured before the twentieth century.

[Frodo]

Data From Space, Oceans Validate Global Warming Timeline

Associated Press
Friday, April 29, 2005; Page A13

NEW YORK, April 28 -- Climate scientists armed with new data from the ocean depths and from space satellites have found that Earth is absorbing much more heat than it is giving off, which they say validates computer projections of global warming.

Lead scientist James E. Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist, described the findings on the out-of-balance energy exchange as a "smoking gun" that should dispel doubts about forecasts of climate change.

Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.

If carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin "out of our control," especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers said. International experts predict a 10-degree leap in such a worst-case scenario.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801586.html

[J. J.]

The main question is if this is a long term climatic chang that is natually occuring.  We've had temperature shifts of 1 degree/century in historic times, including period of time when the Earth was both warmer and cooler on average.

[John Dibble]

IF you want me to really confuse you listen to this. Global Warming would actually creat Global cooling. I have read a few things about this and a few "scholars" have come to this conclusion. While it is true that the temperatures ARE indeed rising the increased heat would melt the ice at the poles. The cooler water flowing out from the North Pole into the Gulf stream would SLOW the Gulf stream down, thus the warm air that is now keeping Europe realitively thawed would cease, thuse creating another ice age for Europe and most of the Northern Hemisphere. I don't know if this is true, it's just something I read and it made a LOT of sense since the ocean currents have a bunch to do with weather patterns.

I've learned this too from taking an Earth and atmospheric science course. The thermohaline cycle, aka the great conveyor belt, moves warm air northward. You see, water does not increase in volume when salt is added to it - it instead increases in density. Salt water sinks to the bottom of the ocean and this is what drives the ocean currents. What does this have to do with cooling? Well, you see, ice has no salt in it - it's pure H20. If the ice caps were to melt, a large amount of fresh water would essentially be dumped into the ocean, decreasing the salinity and thus changing the thermohaline cycle, possibly resulting in an ice age. The transition can happen within a mere 10 years even.

Also, just of note to the people who think a puny 10 degrees farenheight is gonna kill off the planet, during the Cretaceous period the temperature was about 8.5 degrees celsius above the current temperature.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Global warming won't kill the planet, but it will kill South Flordia and every other low-lying coastal area.   A thermohaline collapse would be bad news for Western Europe and Northeastern North America, but it wouldn't affect the global climate by much.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think global warming is EXTREMELY exaggerated. A couple years ago half the US was supposed to be covered with water. Did it happen? No.

Who said that?

[Citizen James]

As with anything from scientists, there are few 'certain' answers, along with a lot of 'possibles' and 'potentials'.  That's just the nature of science.  Remember, even some of Newton's "laws" turned out to be a bit off.

The fact that human activity has had an effect of the makeup of the atmosphere is considered pretty much obvious.   The fact that average temperatures have been gradually rising is supported by emperical data. The idea that Human activity is at least a factor is considered to be highly probable.

The real danger here is not so much the massive catastrphies that make for special effects laden disaster movies, but more gradual and persistent problems.

A rise in the sea levels would not instantly engulf southern florida (any more than the mythical earthquake which would supposedly sink California). Instead, the rate of erosion along the coastlines would increase, and the tide would tend to go in a little further, and not go out quite as far, and flooding would probably be a bit worse during hurricanes.

Plus, we might see a gradual (but faster than might otherwise occur in nature) shift in regional temperatures and precipitaion, which could in turn effect agraculture and thus food prices - by flood, drought, freezes, or other less than ideal growing conditions that various regions rely upon.

I think there is clearly enough evidence to warrant caution.  Some steps, such as improving fuel standards, would have the additional benefit of decreasing our need for foriegn oil, and decreasing the population's overall risk of repetory disease by decreasing polution.

I would think that real conservatives would appriciate the need for caution.   After all, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?   To paraphrase the justification for the Iraq war, do we really want to wait until we have widespread droughts and largescale coastal flooding before we do anything?  I think from what knowledge we have, several general enviormental improvements and safeguards would be a prudent step and easily pass the cost/risk/benefit analysis.

The risk may not be the grand catastrophe that the opponents of conservation like to use as a straw man, but the strong preponderence of evidence shows that the risks, though less dramatic, are quite real.

[??????????]

I'm not really concerned about it. I will probably be long dead before anything on a large scale occurs. Meaningless really. It's like worrying about the exact date when the sun will implode wiping out the solar system.