Media + Global Warming = Huh?

I'm an extremely opinionated kind of guy, I have one for about everything and I rarely reverse my position unless it's pretty clear I'm in the wrong. However, the issue of global warming, climate change whatever you want to call it, is really driving me nuts. This is the single issue I can honestly say, I have no opinion on And I blame the media for screwing the issue to where it is today.

At first you had all the big scientists coming out saying global warming is a huge deal and we're all jerks for not fixing it.

Then you throw these sun related events into the mix- sun spots, solar max/min, all the lot; things start to get blurry.

Some scientists backed out, many others are standing firm that we are the problem. You have people like Al Gore who certainly will not give up.

I've also read a lot lately about how the levels of CO2 only make up for less than 1cm of the total thickness of the atmosphere where as N/O/etc make up vast distances.

Then you turn on lets say a discovery channel or BBC special on it and it's all flipped around, that we're going to have wrecked everything before 2100 and the impact is in fact huge.

I also realize that oil companies probably pay scientists to sway their votes and maybe even reporters to change their tune, it wouldn't surprise me.

I mean you look outside if you're in a big city and see all the smog, no one can tell me thats a good thing lol. What I want to know is to what degree is what we're doing a bad thing and how much is media bs?

I'm all for hybrid cars and reducing emissions, but when I start paying carbon taxes and all this crap I want to know the facts. Here in BC, Canada, we're going to have to start paying a carbon tax soon, they sprung it on us with zero warning and a lot of people aren't happy.
If Al Gore is right (just an example) though, you know what, I'm fine paying it, if it'll help and it's not just a way to tax me even more.

In case anyone was curious, this is our atmosphere's makeup:

Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Carbon dioxide 0.0384%
Water vapor about 1%
Other 0.002%

en.wikipedia.org...

As far as the information I have learned over the past years, and giving a report 2 years ago on the effects of Global Warming. Since that, I have changed my position. Most people agree a climate change is happening. It is hard to believe for some people that we can change the atmosphere.

While on the other hand, people are super-concerned that humans are the cause of it. Being 'Green' is good and all, it cold make a positive difference, but the fact is known:

Climate Change is happening.

Where the problem is, is that who caused it. It is the Naturalists vs. Humanists. As far as my opion is, Global Warming is a normal trend is the Earth's life. The Earth cools and warms over the century. Ever heard of the 'Little Ice Age'? It happened in the DARK Ages! Crops failed, the Vikings died out in Greenland, and human progress was stalled. Then it warmed up, and everything was hunky-dory.

I think this paranoia about climate change is uncalled for. It is natural, let Earth continue on. We are way to concerned about it. Yes, climate change comes with its disadvantages, but as a species, we cope with it.

Climate change is normal. It will happen, and I can tell you, at some point in the future, there WILL be another Ice Age, it is only a question of how long.

Where do you stand?

Naturalists or Humanists?

Your right Anonymike there are a lot of contradictory views displayed out there. The media do not always show science, in any area, in its most readily understodd ways, although scientists don't neccesarily help in this either

As truth_seeker3 said climate change has been a feature of this planet forever. The climate records show regular shifts in global climate from hot to cold and back again. The most recently recorded and major shifts in climate would be the younger-dryas and the 'Little Ice Age'. The younger dryas was a rapid cooling event that brought the return of the ice age conditions that were ending due to the release of a large amount of fresh water into the northern Atlantic. The cause of the LIA has been attributed to many different things and it's probably best to read it here rather than me trying to write it. So assuming that climate change happens, and is happening now (in a specific way rather than just generally) who's fault is it?

Whatever may be said here or elsewhere the general concensus view amongst climate scientists is that climate change (ie what is happening now) is due to human causes. This does not make it therefore true, but it is the generally accepted view. Also this does not mean that ALL scientists agree with this but most scientists do.

The importance of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be judged by its volume in comparison with other things. Just because it is small compared to nitrogen does not mean that it doesn't play a large role. Consider the ocean, it is made up of water. However there is a little bit of salt in it about 0.3% of the ocean is salt. Would you suggest that that small amount of salt doesn't make a huge difference?

The affects of CO2 on the gobal climate are obtained through the use of global general circulation climate numerical models (GCM). These models are highly complex and include the physical and chemical properties of most of the major parts of the climate system. These models need a lot of computing power to run. Obviously, it is not possible for these models to exactly model the global climate system but the major elements are included and they are pretty good at modelling the climate as we now find it. In fact the basic models are used, with a bit of tweaking for locality etc, for weather predictions and I think that, even here in the UK, we are starting to trust them a little. Within these GCM's changes in the CO2 level can be modelled and the impact studied. Increases in CO2 produce generally increases in temperature (globally averaged), increases in sea level and decrease in ice volume. Now each model is different and do not predict exactly the same values, which is why the IPCC in their most hated reports use at least four different models from around the world, they all produce the same trend. This togethor with the timing of the increase in temperatures is one of the main reasons that human induced climate change is the consensus view.

A lot of other things are suggested such as solar activity as causes of recent climate change. What tends to be the case is that these things do play a role in the global climate system but that the human forced part is now playing at least as large a role.

I never get a straight answer for this...but assuming our emmisions are slightly increasing the speed at which natural global warming occurs...if we stopped all emissions tomorrow...how long would that *actually* halt the process? Im more persoanlyl worried about the perma frost in siberia than cars or planes....something the size of north america melting and releasing methane?...cant be good....