Global Warming Affecting The World

Yeah now that you metion it..I havent seen any lighting bugs this year either. I too have notice the lack of the summer sounds. When I go out at night just a few peeps now, used to be so loud at night ti could keep you awake, now almost silent.

I do think the earth is warming, there is physical evidence to prove it, but my biggest beef is that humans are the cause, I dont buy it for a minute. the earth is a magnificent place, and I think it is capable of doing things we can understand.

I think its rediculous for some of you to say, "we have to do something about it" because it is a natural phenomenon, the earth changes, species adapt, or die, new species evolve.

this is the way of life, Humans will be doing far greater damage in the long run if we come up with some sort of way to prevent the warming. It is ment to happen. I hate the idea that just because we live on this planet, we are suppost to "fix" it.

Originally posted by acura_el2000

I think its rediculous for some of you to say, "we have to do something about it" because it is a natural phenomenon, the earth changes, species adapt, or die, new species evolve.

So you would have no problems if your loved ones suffer or even die due to disasters caused by climate change?

Yes "we have to do something about it."
We need to stop treating our home like a dump. We need to move people to safer areas. We need to adapt our way of life so that innocent people wont suffer from climate change related disasters.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Complete and utter bull#.

See, these charts are -intentionally- (do you support the OMFG NWO ?!?!?!!?!?!?!?1 CONSPIRACY lol) misleading. They start in the 1850's, which is kind of, hmm, a funny coincidence. The coincidence? A couple centuries before, the Earth was at the little climate optimum, when it was about as warm as it is today. Then temperatues fell and the Earth got colder. In the 1800's, especially apparent in a graph that starts in 1850, the Earth began naturally warming again after the mini ice age.

These effects that are being document are a perfectly natural part of the Earth. All things are cyclical. There is no shred of proof whatsoever that humans have a thing to do with the THEORY of "Global Warming" or any of the effects we're observing.


We're not going to die, at least not from this.

Seriously, if you think, we are not in a global warming era, then go see "An Inconvenient Truth", if after that, you still have some doubt, then your situation is hopeless.

There are one or two graphics in that movie, that can hardly be contested.

The Medieval Warm Period (1300 approx) was much smaller (intensity & time) than what we see since the last 40 to 50 years.

Originally posted by brykc14
Yeah now that you metion it..I havent seen any lighting bugs this year either. I too have notice the lack of the summer sounds.

While I'm not sure where you live, (and assuming you mean green fire flies?) but I would have to disagree with you there. I live in a pretty forested area, and the abundance of them can be kind of freaky sometimes, like when they look like pairs of eyes glowing at you from bush.
Also when I drive at night, quite often there will be little splatters of flourescent green all over my windshield and hood as I plow through em all lol

On topic: like a few have already posted(and we should all know), climate change is a natural occurrence, one which has been recorded all throughout history by man, and with the help of man's discovery of pre-historic fossils, bones, and from extracting samples of ice from deep inside arctic glaciers.

I believe global warming is largely due to greenhouse gasses trapping heat from the sun in our atmosphere, combined with rapid deforestation of our planet.
Human activity has increased the emission levels of all naturally occurring greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution, specifically carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
We have also created powerful gases that are not naturally occuring in our atmosphere through various industrial processes. These include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated through a variety of industrial processes.
Global Warming- Emissions

All things are cyclical. There is no shred of proof whatsoever that humans have a thing to do with the THEORY of "Global Warming" or any of the effects we're observing.

I strongly disagree. Here are shreds of- what I believe to be- proof

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.
Source

"Research ... shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone. Also, the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone."
source

In the end, if a global climate change doesn't get us, depletion of our ozone layer will


Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation

CLIMATE: Ice, Mud Point to CO2 Role in Glacial Cycle

Global Warming Basics

Global Climate Change

PUUULEEEEZZZZ....!!!

You pull out as many reports and charts you want.
They are only a blink of an eye as far as this planet is concerned.
When you can find a weather man that can tell me if its ok to have
a BBQ on friday outside, then we will talk. Otherwise, please put your
charts and reports where the belong..in the garbage !!

Think about this....
What happens to an ant hill when you knock it over.
To think we can effect this planet ????!!!!

Ignorance of some people thinking they are actually something on
this planet is beyond my scope of understanding !

PS: to the guy above me: I dont know where you live, but i do NOT have any fire flys or bug sounds at night. I DO remember them as a kid..even in yonkers. In the end......The universe will not last forever....I say we make floating houses and call it a day.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by imbalanced]

[edit on 27-6-2006 by imbalanced]

I agree with Imbalanced,

Just think how many millions of tons of material including all sorts of noxious gasses were released into the atmosphere from Mt Saint Helens or in the last century Krakatoa (loudest Natural event ever), that caused snow in New York in June and the Tsunami went round the world six times.
HOW many automobiles do we have to have for how long to even be equivalent to one of these events. And there are thousands of them recorded in history. (Krakatoa even put dust in the Snow record at the poles).

We are ruining our planet but it can ruin itself quicker than we can!!

Life is short enjoy.....

As far as personal experiance and thoughts on the subject go:

I too have noticed it getting obscenely warer the past couple of years. It barely snowed at all this past winter, and when it did, it was gone in a few days as opposed to weeks.

I honestly feel as if the seasons have 'shifted' forward by about a month. Seriously, think about it. Doesn't this june feel colder than last june? and even colder than the june before that? I've been planning a small study into this, and a post should be up within the next month.

but not because of anything we are doing. I am definately in the camp that thinks it is happening, but globally man's affect is minimal. That isnt to say that locally or regionally we dont have problems with the after effects of our behavior.

This link The REAL Inconveinient Truth will give probably the most concise and real science outlook on this phenomena and puts it into true perspective, IMHO. It is a pure counter-argument to the rabid fear of the modern extreme eviromentalists spewing crap everywhere.

Our true understanding of this effect is phenominally dim, especially when one takes into consideration that current science show us that the earth has had periods of much greater warmth and cold waaay beyond the effect of humans in time.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Lost_Mind]

This has got to be the biggest pile of malarky I've laid my 44 year old eyes on re: this topic:

(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators.

LINK

You've got to be kidding me.....right? Water vapor as a pollutant? Next quantum level molecular interactions will be on these wackos lists. Give me a break.....

Guess this means that we cant drive our transportation industries toward technologies that will run vehicles on water or hydrogen because water vapor is the emission form those types of engines. Damned if you do, well you know the rest....

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
This link The REAL Inconveinient Truth will give probably the most concise and real science outlook on this phenomena and puts it into true perspective, IMHO. It is a pure counter-argument to the rabid fear of the modern extreme eviromentalists spewing crap everywhere.

Oh great.
Steven Milloy and Junkscience.com.

Philip Morris funded the creation of JunkScience.com. Milloy was registered as a lobbyist with the EOP Group in 1999, with the American Petroleum Institute and FMC Corp listed as clients. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
he Cato Institute gets it money from Exxon Mobil and others in the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute has a budget of about $14 million a year, derived from 15,000 contributors. At least $75,000 has been given by Exxon. Other investors include:Microsoft Corp- oration, Viacom International,Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank,Citicorp/Citibank,Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas,Castle Rock Foundation (reformed Coors Foundation),as well as the American Petroleum Institute.

Link

The fact of Global Warming is indisputable. Exactly what role mankind is playing is still up for discussion, but there is no dispute that mankind is in fact playing some kind of role. It appears that mankind's various activities (pollutants, deforestations, etc.) are serving to make this particular cycle of warming greater than it would otherwise have been had we not been doing those things.

While the general effects of Global Warming are not in-the-main directly life threatening to humans the secondary effects of such warming will undoubtedly cause the deaths of many humans. Let's review for a minute just what some of those secondary effects are.

1. Ocean levels will rise due to two factors, the melting of glaciers and ice packs around the world (exactly how much no one knows yet) and the thermal expansion of the oceans. Projections have ranged from around 2 feet to over 20 feet, but many scientists are now saying all of the projections could be very conservative (meaning ocean levels could rise faster and higher).

Considering that most of humankind lives within 50 miles of a coastline, and further considering that most terrain near coastlines is relatively low level (i.e., flat), it is obvious that even a small rise in ocean levels will impact hundreds of millions of people. For one thing they will have to move further inland, but where exactly? Will they be welcomed when they get there or will such mass migrations cause trouble? Further, island nations will really be hit hard. So hard in fact that a portion of them will simply dissappear beneath the water. Another portion will have their ground water and soil become contaminated by salt to one degree or another. The point is, many of these people too will have to move.

2. Loss of bio-diversity due to mass extinctions. All scientist agree there will be mass extinctions (in fact, they are already starting), but nobody, and I mean that literally, knows exactly what effect such mass extinctions will have on humans. There is a general consesus that such losses will be bad for humans, but nobody knows how bad.

3. Increases in the ranges and types of diseases afflicting mankind. This phenomenon is already happening and is expected to get worse. How, exactly, such changes will effect human populations is not presently known, but the effects will not be beneficial.

4. Increasing incidences of drought and the growing scarcity of fresh water. As the atmosphere heats up it's capacity to absorb/retain moisture increases. What this means is that there will be less fresh water available on, or under, the surface of the Earth. In other words, droughts will increase simply because more of the available water will be locked up in the air.

I suppose I could go on listing such secondary effects ad naseum, but the point is the effects of Global Warming will not by any measure be painless for humans--people will die. Probably a hell of a lot of them.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

everybody is a shill for somebody. As extreme to his side of the global warming issue as Milloy is, there are those on the extreme other side of this issue that are quoted as verbatum dead on science as well.

The "truth", (which is what we all are here looking for, right?) lies somewhere in between. A fair assumption I would guess. Depending on a persons knowledge, personal experience and influences in life, it will have a tendancy to show what side of any given issue said person will fall to.

But it is absolutely imperative that both sides must be looked as equally as possible by any given person to get at the truth of any given issue. Given that, I end up leaning more towards global warming being a fully natural event with little or no assistance from humans and thier activities, past or present. Locally and regoinally I do think we do affect our environments and some things can be done about those issues. This planet has been doing its thing, both hot and cold (hotter even) for a very long time, a lot longer than we have been mucking about with our cars factories and powerplants.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Lost_Mind]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by brykc14
Global Warming to me doesnt mean man made, it just means the climate is changing.

And the world discussion better start moving towards how we intend to deal with that! The bickering over 'cause' is eventually going to make us miss the boat, imo.

REPLY: Are we going to somehow control the Sun, or somehow reduce all that nasty water vapor which is the cause of GW? Any suggestions?

".... It appears that mankind's various activities (pollutants, deforestations, etc.) are serving to make this particular cycle of warming greater

REPLY: Deforestation results in lesser amounts of moisture; good thing. It also means less of a heat sink locally.

Pollutants, at least in America, are down to levels before the Industrial Revolution, especially particulates. CO2 is not a pollutant; it's plant food = more oxygen for all living things.

Originally posted by Umbrax

Oh great.
Steven Milloy and Junkscience.com.

Philip Morris funded the creation of JunkScience.com. Milloy was registered as a lobbyist with the EOP Group in 1999, with the American Petroleum Institute and FMC Corp listed as clients. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
he Cato Institute gets it money from Exxon Mobil and others in the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute has a budget of about $14 million a year, derived from 15,000 contributors....."

REPLY: So we shoot the messenger for the message? Your implications would be that if any group, say the anti-smoking Nazis, provide sources for data that agree with their position, it's crap?

as I previously stated, do you give it no thought that if we DO stand up and take action to reverse this "warming" that worse things could happen? like evolution going into limbo? It is a natural phenomenon, and we have to adapt. If there was an ice age coming we would be scurrying to warm up the planet, look at what it does to the earth, such huge significant changes. humans can survive the warming, and even thrive in areas that were previously barren... eg. how much of russia is used? or the antartic? so much unused land, which in warmer years will become a land thats fertile. We should not try to stop earths natural course. think about the long run, it could be much worse if we dont allow the earth to change like its suppost to. change is good.

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL


Seriously, if you think, we are not in a global warming era, then go see "An Inconvenient Truth", if after that, you still have some doubt, then your situation is hopeless.

REPLY: Oh, yeah........ and Michael Moore's movie was right, too. NOT!!!
Do your own research:
[link] www.sepp.org... [/link]

There's about 8 hours of reading there, including the links. Then let me know your thoughts.

Originally posted by acura_el2000
as I previously stated, do you give it no thought that if we DO stand up and take action to reverse this "warming" that worse things could happen?

REPLY: Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it, and indeed, there are parts of the world that would actually benefit from a longer growing season.

It is a natural phenomenon, and we have to adapt. If there was an ice age coming we would be scurrying to warm up the planet, look at what it does to the earth, such huge significant changes. humans can survive the warming, and even thrive in areas that were previously barren... eg. how much of russia is used? or the antartic?

REPLY: So true: It's like the old "overpopulation" scare decades ago. The entire Earth's population would fit into Texas, and every four people would have 1/4 acre.
Crowded to be sure, and an extreme example (never happen) bit it makes the point.

Originally posted by zappafan1


REPLY: Are we going to somehow control the Sun, or somehow reduce all that nasty water vapor which is the cause of GW? Any suggestions?

Increased Water Vapor is not the cause of Global Warming it is a symptom and an accelerant.

mustelid.blogspot.com...

Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas

OK, so it may not surprise you that I'm going to have to qualify the headline a bit lower down, but the point itself remains.

...

In contrast, CO2 has a long lifetime (actually calculating a single "lifetime" for it doesn't work; but a given CO2 pulse such as we're supplying now will hang around for.. ohh... a century or more). It doesn't rain out (amusing factoid: the surface temperature of the deep interior Antarctica in winter can be colder than the freezing point of CO2; but this doesn't lead to CO2 snow (sadly, it would be fun) because the freezing point is lower because of the lower pressure because its higher up). So if you put in extra CO2 the climate warms a bit; because of this move WV evaporates (it doesn't have to, but just about all models show that the relative humidity tends to be about constant; so if you heat the atmos that means that the absolute humidity will increase). This in turn warms the atmosphere warms up a bit more; so more water gets evaporates. This is a positive feedback but a limited one: the increments (if you think of it that way) get smaller not larger so there is no runaway GH effect.

So: adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more WV. Adding WV does nothing much and the atmos returns to equilibrium. This is why WV is not the *dominant* GHG; its more like a submissive GHG

www.realclimate.org...

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response

Global Warming isn’t caused by the sun either.

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978. That means that for the last thirty years, while our temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

www.pmodwrc.ch.../composite/SolarConstant

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Deforestation results in lesser amounts of moisture; good thing. It also means less of a heat sink locally.

Pollutants, at least in America, are down to levels before the Industrial Revolution, especially particulates. CO2 is not a pollutant; it's plant food = more oxygen for all living things.

Right, Plant life takes in CO2 and puts out oxygen. Deforestation means that there are less trees to take in that CO2.

Originally posted by zappafan1

REPLY: So we shoot the messenger for the message? Your implications would be that if any group, say the anti-smoking Nazis, provide sources for data that agree with their position, it's crap?

Do you have any idea how much money Exxon and the like are spending to misinform the public?

"Anti-smoking Nazis" do not stand to lose billions of dollars like big-oil does. They don’t have the millions to funnel in to academics and lobby groups either.

You will have me try and pick apart that whole 7564 word page and it’s links? That is a demand that would require way too much of anyone’s time.

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Oh, yeah........ and Michael Moore's movie was right, too. NOT!!!
Do your own research:
[link] www.sepp.org... [/link]

There's about 8 hours of reading there, including the links. Then let me know your thoughts.

Again sidetracking with demanding something near impossible for most people.
Didn’t you just tell me “So we shoot the messenger for the message?”
What makes your 8 hours of reading material better than the movie?
I haven’t seen the movie, have you?

Originally posted by zappafan1

REPLY: So true: It's like the old "overpopulation" scare decades ago. The entire Earth's population would fit into Texas, and every four people would have 1/4 acre.
Crowded to be sure, and an extreme example (never happen) bit it makes the point.

I don’t know where that “stat” is from. Maybe we can mash 6.5 billion people into texas, but where will our waste go? Where will we grow our food? Where will we fit the extra 2.4 billion people when we hit 2050?
The statement is misleading.