What do you believe about Global Warming?

[kallend 2,106]

Well?

For brevity's sake I'm using GW as a shorthand for climate change.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Well?

For brevity's sake I'm using GW as a shorthand for climate change.

Donno. Not where I was the last couple weeks. Woke up w/ a foot of snow on my truck and all the roads Brrr

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[matthewcline 0]

My multiple vote was; There is GW, to a small degree it is affected by us (but it is a cycle if all these leanring channels on cable are even close).

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[BIGUN 1,399]

There is a well-respected PhD in Environmental Science from the University of Oklahoma in my neighborhood who can show you white paper after white paper that GW is a fact. Then there's Dr. Gray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray of whom everyone in Disaster Response treats as E.F. Hutton - when he talks we listen; that has a dissenting opinion on the matter. When I have enough factual information to educate me either way to make an informed decision; perhaps I'll be able to cast a vote.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Obviously the climate of the planet is not going to remain the same forever, the planet is always changing and there's countless factors that conrtibute to it. I think to an extent we are responsible but I don't believe everyone saying that not car pooling is going to cause a drastic change. just my .02

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[diverborg 0]

I believe the climate is warming, but in all honesty just don't know how much of it we are actually contributing. I'm all for being as efficient as we can be, but at the same time how much can we actually/realistically contribute to reversing it.

Basically I just don't know, and don't get too worried about it either.

ps well said BIGUN
Just heard too many arguments both ways, that both make sense.

[billvon 3,064]

What I have discovered to be true as scientific fact rather than opinion:

1) Human releases of CO2, primarily from combustion of fossil fuels, have raised CO2 levels significantly in the past 200 years.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that prevents re-radiation of infrared radiation, causing overall temperatures to increase

3) The climate shows a great many changes in the past, most occurring over thousands of years

From here, I believe:

1) We are responsible for most of the warming that's happened over the last 200 years

2) We are causing this warming to occur much faster than would ordinarly happen during a natural climactic shift

3) We do not know what the effects will be, but we know at least some of them will be bad (i.e. flooding of coastal areas)

4) Slowing down this change by reducing the CO2 we emit will give us more time to mitigate the problems this causes (like how to relocate millions of people)

[lawrocket 3]

I believe that the climate is changing. I believe that human involvement is a factor, but marginal. I believe this because the vast majority of greenhouse gases are not anthropogenic in nature.

I agree that CO2 causes a failure of reradiation of infrared heat.
I agree that man has placed a buch of CO2 in the atmostphere in the last 200 years.

However, I also find it much easier to prove "correlation" than "causation."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,064]

> I believe this because the vast majority of greenhouse
>gases are not anthropogenic in nature.

Quite true, and it's a good thing! We'd be seeing day/night temperature swings of 80-100F without any greenhouse gases at all. And given that we're well on our way to doubling one of the more important greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, I'd expect to see a change based on that.

[rhys 0]

>We do not know what the effects will be, but we know at least some of them will be bad (i.e. flooding of coastal areas)

4) Slowing down this change by reducing the CO2 we emit will give us more time to mitigate the problems this causes (like how to relocate millions of people)

I guess this puts Nederland up shit creek without a paddle eh. a storm surge or two away from being a giant swoop pond!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[ScottishJohn 25]

I really don't know why your so worried about Global Warming because Tony Blair is going to save the planet and ctop Global Warming by taxing the British public to the hilt.

So there you go , no more global warming , just higher fuel duty and airport taxes for the British public.

A better title for this thread would have been "What do you believe about man made climate change"

The human race is causing climate change on a global scale but as I said Tony is going to save us all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And given that we're well on our way to doubling one of the more important greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, I'd expect to see a change based on that.

As would I.

But...

The most important greenhouse gas in terms of effect is water vapor. It isn't even close. Next is CO2 and 3rd is methane.

I believe that all reasonable scientists admit that compared to natural sources, anthropogenic contributions of CO2 are small. We DO know that CO2 is in higher concentrations now that in the past 1k years. We also know that humans have put a whole load of CO2 into the atmosphere. 10 points for anthropogenic causes.

Still, I know that warming and cooling has happened in the past. 20,000 years ago, the sea level was an estimated 300 feet below where it is now. Imagine is human civilization had dveloped on the coast back then? We would have seen a disaster as global warming would have sunk coastal cities.

Anthropogenic causes were de minimus then. Now, we see an increase in temperature over the last decade or two which is correlated over the last decade or two with an increase in CO2 over the last 150 years.

Too many questions for me. I do not believe it is reasonable to suggest that we have nothgin to do with it. But, I cannot discount the changes that have occurred over time in the past as having little to do with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,064]

>The most important greenhouse gas in terms of effect is water
>vapor. It isn't even close. Next is CO2 and 3rd is methane.

Right. Water vapor is critical because water vapor condenses in the atmosphere, forming clouds. Clouds are almost completely opaque to IR radiation at all wavelengths; that's the reason dew does not form on cloudy nights. When it's cloudy out, clouds completely dominate the greenhouse effect.

A secondary but still very significant factor comes from the effects of water vapor as a greenhouse gas, which happens even on clear nights. This comes mainly from water vapor higher in the atmosphere.

>I believe that all reasonable scientists admit that compared to
> natural sources, anthropogenic contributions of CO2 are small.

They are indeed. Total heat input per square meter by the sun is around 1366 watts/square meter; we used to radiate the same amount, which is why the earth usually stays at about the same temperature, and changes only over very long time frames. The additional CO2 has changed that balance by a small amount; only by about 2.7 watts. That's .2%, which is small by any measure. However, it's a constant imbalance, and because of thermodynamics it means the planet will gradually warm until something else starts to re-regulate it.

>Still, I know that warming and cooling has happened in the past.
>20,000 years ago, the sea level was an estimated 300 feet below
> where it is now. Imagine is human civilization had dveloped on the
> coast back then? We would have seen a disaster as global warming
> would have sunk coastal cities.

Over 20,000 years? We can adapt to changes within that time frame. That's about 800 generations, or far, far, far longer than any human city has lasted. The problem with global warming is not that change will happen; it will happen no matter what we do. The problem is we are forcing a change within a few generations that once took hundreds.

[quade 4]

Quote

Too many questions for me. I do not believe it is reasonable to suggest that we have nothgin to do with it. But, I cannot discount the changes that have occurred over time in the past as having little to do with it.

Compare this to a living organism.

There will be a natural change over time.

Most organisms also have parasite organisms living within them. The relationship can be completely symbiotic if things are in balance, but if out of balance can be completely destructive. In a few instances, it doesn't take very much of a change to go from one state to the other.

This is the way I see the earth, humans and carbon emissions. Yes, there is change over time, but humans are accelerating that change and there is a direct correlation between the temperature rise and the amount of carbon in the air. It's easy to see.

Does that mean that the corellation is the causation? Well, it's a pretty good indication! But for any of the skeptics on that point, wouldn't it be in mankind's best interest to at least run the experiment to find out? Reduce carbon emissions and see if we can reduce the amount of temperature increase?

Let's say tomorrow we discovered that an asteroid was absolutely going to, in 100 years, impact the earth and destroy it unless we did something. It's a completely natural process isn't it? But do you think for a second that we should just continue to let this natural process continue to its ultimate and logical conclusion or do you think it might be better to think of a way and then take some action to stop it from happening?

So, here's what we ABSOLUTELY know about climate change;

1. It's happening. No question.
2. There is a DIRECT correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature rise.
3. Mankind causes a HUGE amount of carbon emissions a large portion of which are completely optional.

The ONLY reasonable thing to do is to lower emissions and HOPE that we haven't gone past the point of no return.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The problem is we are forcing a change within a few generations that once took hundreds.

Of this, there are reasons to believe that. However, I still find reasons to doubt it. The preponderance of evidence probably supports this view, but to me it is not clear and convincing. That's all. I have an absolute respect for your viewpoint, bill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Let's say tomorrow we discovered that an asteroid was absolutely going to, in 100 years, impact the earth and destroy it unless we did something. It's a completely natural process isn't it? But do you think for a second that we should just continue to let this natural process continue to its ultimate and logical conclusion or do you think it might be better to think of a way and then take some action to stop it from happening?

This is a statement which gets to one of my nagging suspicions - are we, as humans, trying to prevent the planet from doing what it wants to meet our needs? If that is the case, then it's time to admit it. If nature wanted to heat up the planet, we should let it if we desired not to have human intervention of natural processes.

Personally, I agree with this concept. If an asteroid was headed toward the planet, then we should devote resources to stopping it, because we know that stopping it will ensure humankind.

The elimination of CO2 is different. I do like your comparison to an organism, where slight changes to chemistry can have dramatic effects. I hadn't thought like that,

Quote

3. Mankind causes a HUGE amount of carbon emissions a large portion of which are completely optional.

I agree with part 1, but not part 2. If we are willing to prevent natural occurrences to the planet in order to preserve our comfort, i.e., prevention of a global disaster that would be a bummer for mankind, we are making a value judgment. For the time being, the comfort or humankind is inexorably linked to CO2 emissions. We are moving toward a time when human comfort is less dependent on CO2, which is admirable and noble, but for the coming years, this is the truth.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Butters 0]

Do you think that clearing forests (especially old growth forests) is increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Well?

For brevity's sake I'm using GW as a shorthand for climate change.

I find it interesting that more people blame Clinton for GW than deny GW is occurring

• Quote

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I find it interesting that more people blame Clinton for GW than deny GW is occurring

I blame Clinton for GW...... if he could have kept his dick in his pants... then Gore would have won and GW would not have stood a chance....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I blame Clinton for GW...... if he could have kept his dick in his pants... then Gore would have won and GW would not have stood a chance....

(why, jeanne, I do believe you are now mocking the other side of the political coin.....you vixen )

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Well my dear..... you have been reading my posts long enough to know.. that I have some positions on issues that NOONE could argue as being liberal.. no matter how much our right wing pubicans want to smear that word around people.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I have some positions on issues that NOONE could argue as being liberal..

Peter Noone or Jimmie Noone?

Whatever, they are both musicians and they always see every argument as liberal.

I wouldn't take either one of them personally.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Scoop 0]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I don't believe global warming is occuring to the extent we are or have been led to believe. This planets survived periods as a big ball of ice and as a firey volcanic mass. Its all part of the seasons of the planet. It will do just fine no matter what we throw at it. Whether our actions are acting as a catalyst for change and whether or not we survive is another matter altogether

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you think that clearing forests (especially old growth forests) is increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Absolutely. Trees process CO2 into oxygen, thereby acting as scrubbers. Lose some scrubbing capacity and you'll have more CO2.

Also, when plants die, they decompose and emit methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. So, the answer seems obvious.

The real discussion, as I see it, is whether anthropogenic activity is more than a mere "drop in the bucket."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[philh 0]

I think gw is happenign and we ae at least partly to blame. but I also think much of the press exagerate the extent. i just saw a trailer for a documentary where a talking head says a temp rise of 10 degrees by 2100 will be catastrophic. well Im sure thats true but the IPCC forecast range is between 1.5 to 5. Seems both sides need to get a grip on reality.