Warmer temperatures have been increasing faster since the America Revolution. Our sea levels are rising, storms are getting heavier than ever before, droughts are in different parts of the world and larger hurricanes strike multiple places on earth. There are debates about the cause of this warm up. Some people think that nature is the cause and some people think that humans are the cause. It's quite obvious that both human hands and the environment have a huge role in global warming.
The environment is one cause of global warming. Ocean floors spread which cause more earthquakes to emit. This causes ice sheets to break down. There's stored CO2 in the ice sheets so when they melt it's putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. Some think that global warming is fake. But this is actually happening. The environment is nature of course it's going to change. But this isn't going to happen alone. Republicans believe that "carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant" (Burkhart). How can that not be a pollutant? Carbon dioxide is a natural gas, and gas is pollution.
Republicans also point out that "earth's climate was much warmer" before 1940; not noticing that the temperature in today's time is higher than the other recordings in the past. Our past generation thought that their heat was the hottest temperatures. Some say that before the 1940's when "there were no SUV's" (Williams) there wasn't as much pollution in the air.. We have SUV's today. They pollute, causing CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere trapping more heat. As a result, it's hotter in today's time than every before. It's perfectly clear that without SUV's or pollution, earth wasn't as hot. According to the graph Al Gore shared in his documentary, "An Inconvenient truth", the temperature in the 1940s was cooler than it is today. Earth is hotter today than it's ever been in its history. We caused it!
Humans are another causes of global warming. No, we don't do it all. But we do cause the majority of the changes. We burn "fossil fuels" and fuels "lead to global warming" (Editorial). Another thing that leads to global warming is gases and pollution. One thing pollution comes from is those huge diesel trucks that transport equipment. Thick black smoke exits the vehicles causing the smoke to rise in the atmosphere. We as humans, cause global warming by using cars constantly, littering, and burning gases. If we cut down on how much electricity and transportation we use. Than perhaps, we could help slow global warming. All we're doing now is speeding up global warming. If the rise continues to increase at the rate it is now than earth will not be pretty.
People already think that this world will end soon due to Global Warming. They think it's too late to fix anything. Because earth is hotter today that it's ever been before, it's understandable that we can't really do much to save earth. However, we as society can do a lot to help cool off earth. We can lower the amount of pollution we put in the air by using less electricity, oils, gas, and natural resources. Instead of driving your car two blocks, you could walk; and instead of burning your trash, you could drop it off at the dump. We could fix this problem within our life-time. If everyone contributes together, sooner or later we will see a change.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Pft, bull. What Al Gore and his lackeys fail to take into account is also the weakening of our magnetic field, which allows more solar radiation to hit Earth, thus causing and even greater warming trend. There was little ice on Earth during the time of dinosaurs, so why the worry, if they could deal with it so could we. Even Mars is experiencing global warming due to our magnetic field not protecting Mars either since the radiation that doesn't hit us passes and hits Mars which causes a warming trend there.
It's science and simple. Al Gore is in it for money and as Letterman said, "It's so cold that Al Gore isn't answering phone calls." I do agree people could walk more, and that human probably do cause a minute amount, but it's nothing compared to what the weakening magnetic field allows. The blame rests in the workings of the universe, and I'm pretty damn sure we can live with it just like our ancestors before.
That's an argument I haven't seen. What sources do you have on that? I'd like to check them out.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It's kinda my own thought up arguement. I watched a NOVA show about the weakening magnetic field that generally happens when there is a polar shift, and we're far overdue for one. So I thought that since the magnetic field is letting in more and more solar winds, rays etc. then why can't those be warming the Earth up as well as the natural cycle? It's logical and while I agree humans have had some effect. It seems to me that we need to look at something that is little talked about because things that don't seem that important usually are much more important than you think.
Sounds like it'd make sense. That would be something worth looking into more and writing up its own blog about.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We can measure the solar input fairly accurately. It cannot account for the observed global warming.
We can also measure the anthropogenic output of CO2, trace its flow through the ecosystem, measure the increased concentration in the atmosphere, look at the change in isotopic concentration (this is evidence that the change in CO2 concentration is indeed anthropogenic), and estimate its greenhouse effect and that CAN account for the observed global warming.
Now THAT is science pure and simple.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I don't see how it can't DB. No one has even tested it as far as I know. And it isn't some coincidence that Mars is heating up as well.
NASA is saying that some of these computer models are overestimating the increase. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html
And has anyone taken into account the influx of the sun's temperatures, which is another natural cycle. If they have, they need to show evidence even if it proves that it isn't causing it. I've seen no evidence proving or disproving if a weakening magnetic field has any effect on global warming,
(1) The claim about Mars heating up is a vastly overhyped canard. There have been very few observations made of the climate on Mars and there have been subject to errors. For instance our first temperatures of Mars was from the Viking space craft which just happened to land during an episode of Mars-wide dust storms. See the above link concerning that one.
(2) Concerning your NASA ref:
That is a 2004 reference. It came out shortly after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR). At the time of IPCC TAR one of the big unknowns was the water vapor feedback.
CO2 concentrations are considered a FORCING, If you change the CO2 concentration you literally FORCE the global temperature to change. Water vapor is considered a FEEDBACK and NOT a forcing. The reason for that is because (A) for the most part humans do not directly affect the water vapor concentration, and (B) as the global temperature goes up so does the water vapor.
The effects of increasing CO2 concentrations can have a direct effect (ie the direct forcing due to the CO2 increase) and it can have indirect effects (those would be the effects of the CO2 forcing has on other components of the global climate). The biggest indirect effect is the effect increasing CO2 concentrations have on water vapor.
Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas in itself. Increasing CO2 concentrations will lead to an increase in water vapor, which (if we consider only the greenhouse gas effect of the water vapor) will lead to further warming. But as has been long known the greenhouse gas effect of water vapor isn't its only effect on the global climate. Water vapor tends to coalesce into clouds. Clouds are white. White clouds will increase the earth's ALBEDO (its reflectance). That will decrease the solar input to the earth's surface and lower the earth's temperature.
So what does the water vapor do? Does it increase the earth's temperture through the greenhouse gas effect or does it cool the earth by increasing its albedo? The IPCC TAR admitted that was the greatest uncertainty in determining the energy input/output needed to construct accurate models. Since then there has been A LOT of research to determine what the effect of the water vapor is. It turns out it is a net plus for global temperatures. By that I mean that the greenhouse gas effect outweighs its albedo effect..
We now have the IPCC fourth assessment report (IPCC AR4). The models used there are much more sophisticated (see here for links discussing the models).
The yellow line in this graph is the observed data. The red line is the anthropogenic global warming model prediction. The blue line is the prediction based on natural variations (solar variance and volcanic activity). Note how good the anthropogenic model is during the recent years. The reason for that is because we have more accurate readings of the data the model needs. Notice also how poorly the natural variations account for the observed changes.
(3) Concerning changes in magnetic fields and its effects on global warming.
This article realclimate.org, a blog by mainstream climatologists talks about that very subject.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Thanks DB, I'll look at the data.
So are you saying that argument is a good or bad argument??
Krystella, 17 years old.
shortstella@gmail.com
That would depend on how well the argument holds up against criticism.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think humans cause a little more than a "minute" amount.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
Ok, we've had an effect, but it's not as big as Al Bore likes to say it is.
Just because Manbearpig wasn't real doesn't mean global warming can't be.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
I never said it wasn't, I said it was but that Al Gore is trying to get attention by blaming it all on people because he's either blinded by his ideals or he's plain stupid.
I know you hate Al Gore as much as I do...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
No, it's bearpigman!
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I agree. Humans do cause a lot of it.
Krystella, 17 years old.
shortstella@gmail.com
Please use the reply button, Stella.
Might I also go so far as to annoy you? "STELLA!!!" I couldn't help it; I liked that play.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
NO, You didn't annoy me. It's okay. My friends call me stella. That pretty cool.
Krystella, 17 years old.
shortstella@gmail.com
I disagree. Only because the only proof that humans cause a lot of it comes from Al Gore scientists who are biased in what they put out. I take more stalk in unbiased scientists who say that humans cause some of it, but that it is a mixture of things that cause it and humans are only one factor that isn't as big as Gore says.
Did you read any of the links by people who were not affiliated with Al Gore that DB posted in his blog a week ago?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
No, I looked and left a comment to come back to it but haven't.
The IPCC AR4 whose authors include the most mainstream and scientifically prolific climatologists attribute 100% of the rise in CO2 to human activity. Naomi Orestes did a search of the mainstream literature and no original research has been published in the last 10+ years suggesting that global warming is due to anything other than human activity.
These are the mainstream scientists. They get their money from peer-reviewed grant. That money is earmarked for their investigations. Having gone through this process I can tell you that you get enough money to make a living, but the only scientists I know who are rich are the ones who have gone into industry. By and large, the mainstream climatologists are in academia, not industry.
The only people who doubt it do not publish any research of their own, &/or carp about the limitations of the research of others. They are funded by energy companies who would be adversely affected if we actually did take steps to control our CO2 output. So why do you seem to not consider these people biased?
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I'm still not convinced completely but that's just me. I'm naturally suspicious of people because everyone has an agenda.
I still say there is more at work that we haven't even considered that could be helping global warming. Humans can't do it all.
Btw do you happen to know the name Rob Lodder from anywhere?
People who consider global warming to be a part of a natural cycle will point a graph like the following:
They say, "See there are natural cycles and we just happen to be in one of those." And the graph seems to support that"
People who are convinced that global warming is anthropogenic point to graphs like this:
They say, "See the sharp rise in CO2 concentrations since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The ONLY thing that explains that is anthropogenic CO2 emissions" And the graph seems to support that.
So who is right. The answer is the second group. Look closely at that first graph. It certainly does show that there are natural cycles, nobody has ever denied that. And while the rise DOES look fast, look closer. Each tick mark on the X-axis is 10,000 years. The onset of those naturally occuring global warming events occurs over a period of a tick mark (10,000 years).
Now look at the second graph, In the last 100 years we have had as big a rise in the CO2 concentration as occurred in 10,000 years in those naturally occuring ones. No natural process can account for it. BUT anthropogenic output can.
I don't personally know Rob Lodder. I googled him and he seems to be an interesting guy, but he isn't a climatologist and I didn't find any indication that he is particularly interested in climatology.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I take it all into consideration and have decided to be indifferent to the scientific arguements from both sides. Now I will still keep doing what I do to help the environment, but the scientific aspect is something I'm not going to worry about, nor the celebrity side of it either. And I'm not saying I agree with either side even though both show evidence but I can't tell who is right.
He's not, but I was just wondering if anyone had heard of him.
Let's take all the gas off the planet, then. At least, the stuff that's made naturally. That leaves us without oxygen, without nitrogen, without carbon dioxide... so humans can't live, and neither can any other animals, or plants.... some bacteria would survive, and maybe some algae. That's about it.
Technically, carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant. You'd have to stop humans and other animals from breathing if you thought it was. It's nothing like sulfur dioxide... which causes acid rain and destroys many things. Carbon dioxide is necessary to human survival.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
I agree with that part. I recently learned that Co2 isn't that big of a role in global warming.
Krystella, 17 years old.
shortstella@gmail.com
I found this out after I wrote this.
Krystella, 17 years old.
shortstella@gmail.com
H2O vapor is the real problem.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
We've had a bitter cold winter here in Wyoming. We are tracking pretty near normal and much colder than the last few years.
This video pretty much sums it up for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Set the flamingos free!
Regards,
Jack
It does seem like some areas of the country have had warmer winters lately. I'd put my money on a more unbiased group of scientists though!