it may be man made it might not be. It is true we haven't been around long enough to determine that fact. But in the past 80 years the weather has changed drastically and to say this is evolution is turning a blind eye on the matter. hurricanes have gotten more dangerous, ice all over the world is melting, because of the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. And don't give me a story about the volcano's. Yes its true they put out more co2 into the atmosphere then humans. But to say this was always so, is ridiculous, we have no idea of knowing. but if everyone is trying to say that global warming is part of evolution, then you shouldn't pass up the idea that volcano's are also getting stronger, and more toxic. And who's to say that its not our fault they are getting this way. You don't know, neither do I.
Nobody is telling you to go throw out your incandescent light bulb for a fluorescent light bulb. but when your light bulb needs to be replaced why not get the more energy efficient bulb. Its not a scam to make money. people are generally concerned with the way this planet is going. I'm sure their are a few company's trying to make a dollar off us. It's human nature to try and get ahead of the next man. So be aware, but don't be blind.
why not turn off a light when your not using it? why not use a glass cup over a paper cup, or a ceramic plate over a paper plate? its not hurting anyone, and you'll be saving money. The fact is most people are lazy, I can honestly say i am, but I'm trying to change my ways. Not because I'm being brainwashed, but because I want to make a difference, for myself, and for my children someday.
I'm not running out of my house to buy fluorescent bulbs or a hybrid car. But when I need to replace them I'm definitely going to look into it. Why not it can only help out the earth.
I'm surprised their are so many non believers on such a site as this, its actually alarming. But to each his own. Either you believe or you don't. I'm not here to tell you how to live or what you should do. But just to say that it can"t hurt to try to be more conscience about where this planet is heading. And to keep that in mind next time you go to grab a paper plate over the ceramic plate.
I can agree with that. The fact is that earth just came out of an Ice age and we are just warming up. A global warming happens every 1400 years, give or take. We are all citizens of this world, and garbage despoil is a problem. eventualy we will run out of room. whether this may be the problem, the answer is no. It has been proven that the earth goes though cycles, and it should cool down around 2050? I'm not completely sure. But, would you rather have global cooling?
No I would not rather be in global cooling I like the warmth But we'll see...if were still around that is, if in fact this theory is correct. I hope your right But its still too soon to tell such a thing.
What concerns me is the fact that Global Warming is a POLITICAL issue, not a Science investigation. In all of the Chemistry, Physics, Math, and Engineering classes I had to take at Purdue, I never was exposed to The Democrats or Republicans in any of them. Now I find that they are in fact the key to the solution.
I guess you can say that.. in away yes, because the strength of the hurricanes and the frequency of them is due to the warmer weather...you don't agree?
i completly agree.....and cardinarky if its not a "Science investigation" then why does dicovery channel and the science channel have many shows on it and the shows talk about how it is real!!!!!
Yes I have to disagree. Why do believe that. Was it because hurricane Katrina destruction? Or was because of the whole 2005 hurricane season? Or the media. Truth is hurricanes are not link to Global warming at least not yet. Why look at such little info and not the whole. In order to prove gw you have to show me an increase in hurricanes over a period of time. Right? Not 1 year. How about from 1945-2005.
Note the 59 year trend goes as followed in decades. This is the total number of hurricanes and TS together.
45/54 we had 103 hurricanes and tropical storms 55/64 we had 93 hurricanes and tropical storms 65/74 we had 99 hurricanes and tropical storms 75/84 we had 92 hurricanes and tropical storms 85/94 we had 91 tropical storms and hurricanes and 95/04 we had 137 tropical storms and hurricanes. For 2005 we had 28 hurricanes and tropical storms. In 2006 we had 9 tropical storms and hurricanes. Not all these made land fall as tropical storms and hurricanes. I believe this is just a short term warming period.
Now see there was 137 TS and hurricanes. That was just a jump. NOT A trend. There is no positive trend to link GW hurricanes. True hurricanes fuel on warm waters but it does not cause hurricanes from the start. It takes calm winds and little outside influence. One can’t totally disprove GW, nor can they prove it does exist. To many scientist disagree for 1 and the positive trend in average temp is not long enough. There is proof however that the earth goes through an up and down cycles. So it would take many more years to conclude that GW is or is not true. However if we try hard enough we could make a Gw. That’s why its still important that we cut down on emissions. Given there is no solid proof of it, that does not mean trash the place. You have good intentions yet you need to know more of the concreate facts before you are sure of it. I am all for conserving energy, but those mercury bulbs solve one problem but create another.
I agree with what you have said. BUT as you said, "True hurricanes fuel on warm waters but it does not cause hurricanes from the start. It takes calm winds and little outside influence" I'm not saying GW is that outside influence, but I'm also not saying its not. I live in NYC and we are currently in a hurricane warning, weather men are predicting hurricanes.... And their recently was a tornado in Brooklyn, BROOKLYN!! now one has to stop and ask them self, while its not imposable for these natural occurrences to take place in these areas, and hurricanes in-fact have been in the metro area before, though not anytime recently, Why is this happening. I do believe the warmer whether is absolutely, without a doubt in my mind, causing this. I'm not saying its GW per-say that is causing it.
You believe this is just a short term warming period. It may be, it might not be. Only time will tell. Thank you for saying i have good intentions, but to say i don't have concrete fact, you have to take that bit of info into consideration for yourself as well, because NO ONE has concrete facts. The truth is we haven't be around long enough to determine what is actually fact. We only have data, that believe me, I've been researching. I'm glad to hear that you are one for saving energy. That was the major point i was trying to stress.
Because we all have our own beliefs, and theory's, and I'm not here to say yours is wrong and mine is right, I don't want to preach, but I do want to stress the fact that saving energy, is not a bad thing. While I do believe in global warming I don't dismiss any information given to me. Like GW being a scam. I can totally see that. But I don't believe it. Take for example coal miners, Coal,and fossil fuel is "supposedly" part of the GW problem, yes.? Well regardless of if it is or not, you cant Deni the fact that it does cause air pollution, and they're even finding cancer in old miners more and more.
My point is, I'm trying to help people see that saving energy, and reducing pollution and wast, and just overall being more conscience of the decisions they make throughout their daily routine is not a bad thing, and not a hard thing. You don't have to believe in GW to do that. Fact is this planet is on a one way trip to hell in a hand basket the way were going. Pollution you can not debate, that is as real as the day you and I were born. Doing things to cut back on contributing to pollution is easy, just be more conscience of what we do within a day. Myself included.
i had a thought...the earth is in a constant cycle of cooler,warmer,cooler,warmer, ect... on the surface layers of the earth. even though we have know way of knowing a question I put to you... is the last time the earth was in a warm spell (the surface) was the layers of the atmosphere warmer as well? or is this something new with the rise of the industrial age? just something to think about.
One big problem with the GW story is that different types of pollution keep getting added to the argument. GW from CO2 is the basis for the GW scam. CO2 is a necessary part of the environment, think plants. Pollution from coal has been mentioned. Yes coal is a dirty fuel because is has a lot of real pollutants like soot, CO, sulphur, and some other stuff. But coal plants, at least in the US & Europe, have been using system to remove 99.9 percent of the stuff we don't want in the air. So the end result is very little pollution comes out of a coal stack. Thus it's a good fuel to use.
There is nothing wrong with saving energy. There is nothing wrong with reducing waste. There is nothing wrong with keeping pollution at the lowest level possible. CO2 is not pollution because it is needed in the environment. There is nothing wrong with developing energy from what ever source possible. IE: wind, water, sun, nuclear, geothermal, coal, oil. All of those things can stand on there own merit without the GW story. But when it comes to things like carbon taxes and regulations on CO2 that when it becomes obvious that the GW story is just a way to justify more taxes and government regulation.
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
If most scientist don't believe in global warming why should anybody else?
Branjat, Yeah, I can reason with you. Keep on trying to help conserve energy is important. Pollution is a big problem. You know for living in New York city, you don't sound like the media has total control over you. Just please be careful about what you hear up there. Also something to remember is in genesis 8.22
Global warming has devolved into a faithful versus the non-believers sort of debate. Which is stupid. How about moving past the question to the next logical question? If we can make the Earth warmer, will that be good or bad? There are many circumstances that we can clearly identify as bad. However, if it were to prevent or even ease the disaster we call an "ice age" it might be worth it. Warmer is good sometimes and "green house" is a image of warmth and safety in a hostile universe.
Until I see enough research on the ice age cycle (WHICH IN INDEPENDENT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE) and most weather science, I will not know if warmer is good or bad.
I am alarmed by how many people are stuck on the first question (will it get warmer?) and not dare to move on to the next question and even past that to "What should we do?"
My take on this issue is: According to scientists, man has inhabited this planet a very short time and that being the case has very limited knowledge or understanding of it’s cycles or it’s limits. Every day discoveries are made all over the world that some say prove this or that. We know very little what is going to happen next week or next century as far as the climate is concerned. A asteroid or volcano can completely change all variables in any theory, and the key word is “theory”. What I know is, when people claim consensus (in which science is based on fact, not consensus) has been made, and therefore we must all do as he, she or they says, there is inevitably great profit, unlimited power or both at stake. What I also know is that when people start talking about controlling populations, controlling what kinds of vehicles or how many automobiles a person may own or use, it is still - no matter what their intention - a power or a control factor that is still my greatest concern. Freedom is most unappreciated by those who have never had to wish or fight for it. So, to those idealistic college students, to the tree hugging - monkey signing - whale swimming environmentalists and all around nut case activists out there, I say one thing: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it (just don’t ask me to give my freedoms away).
What is alarming to me is the fact so many very intelligent people blindly follow the global warming myth(belongs more in the mythbusters forum) and do so with so little evidence. Here is the quandrum. We have had some of the coldest weather this year, and yet that is because of global warming. We had a very mild summer in 07, yet again due to global warming. The drought, you guessed it and the floods in CA, yet again.. global warming. Fact is global warming "experts" have made it so that nearly every form of weather, good or bad, is due to gloabl warming even if the very nature of the weather contadicts the thoery of global warming.
Many scientist do not agree in the thoery of global warming, one is the founder of the weather channel. He calls the thoery of global warming one of the most dangerous theories of our time. I could list pages of other scientist who do not agree in global warming but you get the picture.
Here is a thought. Iceland was named that way because at one time it was covered with ice an dyet the ice receded long before cars. Greenland was farmed by the Vickings and yet today it is a mass of ice. Again all of this happened prior to vehicles, hairspray, use of fossil fuel, etc. England was at one time... well you guessed it, Ice.
It is time for us to wake up. Conservation is an absolute need. But not fanatisism. There is a difference between rampant destruction and what todays activist wants humans to do. I for one need my car and will not live in a cave lit by fires. I love to hunt so I take care of my surroundings as do most people. But I will nto fall for untruths. The earth has ran in cycles and will continue to do so. Man can not and has not changed that. What I cant wait to see is when the cycle reverts to overly cold, As we saw in 1993-1994. For a few years leading up to those years and for a few years after we saw heavy rains, extreme cold, monstor storms, etc and it too was Global warming. Now we have the opposite. Soon the cold is coming again and hopefully the majority will kick the fanatics off their podiums.
No matter what side of the thoery you fall on, check out this site. It will show you the stupidity of the claims being made by the so called global warming scientist!!
While I consider myself an environmental scientist, I do agree with the problem of Global Warming and environmental issues as a whole becoming political. What a crazy world politics are! If you want people to take heed - don't make it a political issue it seems.
But while there are fervent crowds around anti-Global Warming and the need for change, I do believe the average person believes. That gives me hope. I talk to people and see people all the time changing the way they live and going out to learn more for themselves. That at least partially balances out the people that scream "But look it was cold in China this winter! That's not Global Warming!"
Real scientist don't anticipate much effect from carbon dioxide at all, much less "increasingly critical". Atmospheric carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect is logarithmic -- the first half of pre-Industrial Revolution-level effect was achieved by less than 20 parts per million, then needing the addition of 250 ppmv more to achieve the same warming increment to reach pre-IR effect and it will take a massive increase to repeat the dose again. (The "how much" depends on total sensitivity estimates but, utilizing A Field Guide to the Atmosphere (Houghton, 1983)'s commonly cited 7 K greenhouse effect for 300 ppmv (presumably from Kondratyev & Moskalenko but the origin of this common figure is obscure) then quadrupling pre-IR levels to 1120 ppmv can deliver a mere 1.71 K warming in total -- since there's already alleged to have been 0.7 K that leaves just 1 kelvin potential for adding another 740 ppmv to the current 380 ppmv.)
Ice is NOT melting all over the world! The sky is NOT falling. If the earth is in a warming cycle it is a natural occurance. The earth naturally produces many more tons of CO2 in one day that man could for 100 years. The earth has warmed and cooled many times over it's lifetime. Evidence of civilizations 10,000 years old are being uncovered by receding ice. How did they get there..under the ice ? The media is pushing this global warming farce, that's why you don't hear the other side. If you dig aroung, even on this website you'll find the admission that "global warming" is up for debate, and isn't a proven fact: http://science.howstuffworks.com/climate-skeptic1.htm
Forums 
But we'll see...if were still around that is, if in fact this theory is correct. I hope your right But its still too soon to tell such a thing.