How do you view the Global Warming issue?

Tagged:  
Global warming is happening, is caused by mankind's actions, and can only be stopped by mankind.
39% (33 votes)
Global warming is happening, but is not caused by mankind's actions, and mankind can do nothing to stop it.
44% (37 votes)
Global warming is not happening.
18% (15 votes)
Total votes: 85
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

...because it was closest to what I think is happening, but not exactly a match to my thoughts.

Global warming is happening - that is a fact and is supported by all historical data that has been collected. Global cooling also happens. Evidence of both the warming and cooling is easily viewed at Kelly's Island if you visit the glacial grooves. Obviously, it got colder at some point for glaciers to be here - and then warmer at some point for them to recede.

So, the earth warms and cools periodically. In the middle ages, during the Little Climatic Optimum, it was much warmer than it is now. The 'little ice age' ended in the 1850's. Since then, the temp has been warming.

Is man causing global warming? No - man is not the cause. However, that does not mean that our actions have NO impact. What impact, how much of an impact and what, if anything we can or should do about the minimal (compared to the natural cyclical nature of the planet) impact we have is the issue.

During the middle ages, it certainly wasn't the impact of man that was primarily responsible for the warming - and our temp currently is not at that level. So, should we institute extreme (according to some) or costly (according to many) measures to try and limit any of our impact on warming? ah...there's the rub.

Even if we are contributing to global warming what, if anything, will our efforts do to stop or halt it?

And who gets to decide the 'right' temperature of the earth that we should be shooting for?

And what are we going to do with all those cows that contribute more than man to the detrimental gases into the atmosphere?

Nice thoughts, Maggie. Perhaps Carty should have touted cow gases as a safe and useful alternative energy source that Toledo is developing when he was stumping for T-town at the LivCom awards contest. Likely would have bumped us up to a 2nd place finish.

By the way... great name for a rock band:
Cow Gases and the Mayor

(All due respect to Dave Barry).

Maggie,

It's a good thing you voted for #2 rather than #1 otherwise some people might accuse you of just being negative again. ;-P

What makes me so skeptical and suspicious of this whole thing is the extremism that you mentioned.

If we follow the money, we can see that this whole thing has more to do with politics and playing on people's fears than it does about the scientific method.

Then there is the issue of how impressionable young kids are being indoctrinated and directed about what they should do to save the melting habitat of polar bears..

That is not to say that we shouldn't be better stewards of our natural resources, but there is a big difference between the conservationism of Thoreau, Muir, and Woodrow Wilson and the environmental activism of today started by hippies who, as we all know, were such great champions of objectivity and rationality.

Besides, why are there so few who say anything about the sun's role in global warming? Maybe it's because the sun can't be regulated or sent a bill or a fine for its radiation.

I agree with Maggie to an extent. The choices offered don't really allow for what is happening. Is global warming happening? Yes. And man has probably helped exacerbate the situation. And man CAN curtail some of his involvements. Maggie, there is no "right" temperature imo. However rising sea levels due to warming would be much more destructive now (in monetary terms) than at any other point.

Whatever the argument, the hard fact remains that Greenland's melting will raise the ocean level by up to 7 feet. Since average shore slopes are 1ft/mile, that means all the world's coastlines will move 7 miles inland on average.

Sure, it seems unlikely that the entire ice cap of Greenland will melt. However, it only 14% of it does, then ocean levels will rise 1ft, which means 1 mile incursion of the ocean on all the world's shorelines. ONE. MILE.

Too much of Humanity lives within 20 miles of the ocean. The inundation costs will be staggering ... truly amazing. Relocations costs will add another astonishing amount. A major fraction of Humanity will quite simply have to move, or be flooded out.

So, the real point is that regardless of rhetoric, all the world's maps will have to change. Greenland's melting is accelerating, and by the time an ice cap melts like that, it's on the "inertia" program, and WILL HAPPEN. Just who's responsible is not going to matter when the bill arrives for trillions of dollars of relocation costs.

It WILL HAPPEN. The oceans WILL RISE. On average, coastal flooding will become severe with each passing decade. And at the very least, New Orleans is ALREADY lost to the ocean ... it's just that the morons who inhabit it and govern it choose not to acknowledge it yet. By the time I die (around 2050) New Orleans will be a wave-washed memory.

...while I don't have 'current' information, a study done in 2005 of the northern glaciers by American, Russian and I think Norwegian scientists showed that the southern glaciers were melting while the northern glaciers were expanding - gaining more ice.

Balance is critical...since we're talking planetary scope, we must look planet-wide at all glaciers if we're going to look at one...only then will we have a complete picture.

The Northern glaciers were expanding because of an increase of rain, when the rain used to be snow

What staggers me is the indoctrination that is occurring with movies like 'the day after tommorrow', and Al Gore's flaming pile of dog doo. They do nothing to tell us that it is likely that no matter what we do we will be very hard pressed to even make a dent in climate change for the so called better. Who's to say what our climate will be in 50 years with or without decreased c02 emissions. It will be very interesting to tell the story of the "early 21st century environmentalist" to my grandkids.........

There is much evidence out there that the idea of Medieval Warm Period (MWP) being warmer than today, or even being a global phenomenon, is false...An excerpt from NOAAs paleoclimatology lab...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

  • Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries
    Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."

    In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

  • It is a dangerous thing to sweep away humankind's impact on climate. Yes, there have been periods of warmer and colder times on Earth, but the patterns that we are seeing now don't fit with these previous climatic shifts. I was at a presentation by a panel of NASA scientists who did research in the polar regions, and the research they were presenting was staggering about the loss of both sea ice and Antarctic ice. About how the patterns are not only shifting, but at a staggering rate. Much faster than would be predicted by historical data. Truly jaw-dropping stuff.

  • Mars temperature is changing - wonder why? (all those men from mars leaving footprints?) They found palm frond fossils in Antartica, which suggests it was tropical at one time.

    And Venus is the warmest planet with all those greenhouse gases causing a warming effect. Last I checked there were no cars, or aresol sprays on Venus.

    But that being said Global warming is partly affected by man and will affect man.

    For all the doomsday talk the one thing where global warming will always affect is the aquisition of fresh water. With the world population still growing fresh water will be determine more and more a factor of where, how, and quality of people's lives. This is not new to humans.

    But again with all the doomsday talk never underestimate the power of the human brain. It is the only animal that can think through complex problems and has shown a remarkable ability to adapt. Thus far man has created numberous problems; food shortages, nuclear weapons, etc and has always eventually thought it's way out of them. This will be no exception because there is no limit to what a mind can do.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    What we can do and what we will do, are two different things.

    BTW - what does venus have to do with Earth? Apples and oranges if you will...

    "BTW - what does venus have to do with Earth? Apples and oranges if you will..."

    Venus has global warming due to Greenhouse gases.

    Earth has global warming due to Geenhouse gases.

    Venus has no people.

    Earth has people.

    Seems to me a pretty clear cut example of apples to apples. Now if I were comparing comets to planets then we'd have apples and oranges.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    You need to take an Astronomy class or one on planetary geology.

    From http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

    Venus was originally cooler than what it is now and it had a greater abundance of water several billion years ago. Also, most of its carbon dioxide was locked up in the rocks. Through a process called a runaway greenhouse, Venus heated up to its present blistering hot level. Because Venus was slightly closer to the Sun than the Earth, its water never liquefied and remained in the atmosphere to start the greenhouse heating. As Venus heated up, some of the carbon dioxide in the rocks was ``baked out.'' The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide enhanced the greenhouse heating. That baked more carbon dioxide out of the rocks (as well as any water) and a runaway feedback loop process occurred.

    If anything Venus makes a case for why we should be doing more to prevent a build up of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    yet

    Yet you proved my point that it happens naturally.

    Thank you for inadvertantly explaining that I'm right.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    Analogies and antidotes don't make science.

    A lecture by Fred Singer given at the local Hillsdale College:
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

    "S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere."

    Fred Singer is hardly an unbiased source, many of the institutes that he is part of receive big money from the petroleum industry. Almost of the articles, "debunking" man made global warming are written by the same hand full of scientists and lobbyist. While hundreds, if not thousands of scientists have published or agree with the links between man and global warming.

    We'd be hearing more about global warming if the Bush administration wasn't going around re-writing scientific findings and censoring scientists.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

    ...if a report 'funded' by a particular industry is biased, a report funded by any group or individual with 'opinions' is also biased.

    You can't claim that the petroleum industry is trying to skew the science and not expect that the environmental movement isn't going to do the same thing.

    Ideally, we'd have blind funding so scientists could produce data, assumptions, theories and then have them tested without having any idea about what the 'funders' were hoping the results would be.

    Interestingly, I was reading about some WWII history and the scientists of the time. There is historical evidence that Germany's scientists were never instructed what to 'conclude' or 'find' in their research, but many of them 'concluded' that eugenics and the superiority of one race over others was 'real.'

    In the end, scientists are human too. While their methods are supposed to help eliminate the personal biases, it doesn't always happen.

    Another thing, Sensor ... I read the post on this topic that you put on the other thread. You posit that Republicans and conservatives are trying to 'shut down' the opposition to their positions. Isn't that the same thing that many environmentalists are doing? There are many scientists who say that global warming is not a settled issue - that there are still things to be learned, assumptions that can and should be challenged and new ideas and information that can impact the 'accepted by many' conclusions. But so many on the extreme environmental side are trying to shut down those scientists and are going around saying that the conclusion is 'concrete' so no more discussion is needed. Funny, but that just doesn't seem to be right from what I remember of my schooling on how scientists are supposed to continually be questioning things. But maybe that's just me.

    I would suggest reading "The Sum of All Fears" as it's great writing, a good fictional story, but with well-documented references for the scientific statements and comments.

    This

    http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=966

    is also a good article from the Foundation for Economic Education, which starts with this:

    "Global warming is a divisive issue. People are either believers or skeptics, with each side viewing the other with apprehension. I've sided firmly with the skeptics, but lately I have had a nagging concern. Like most people, I am not an atmospheric scientist. I have no firsthand way to evaluate a scientific claim for or against the existence of global warming. So what grounds have I for believing what one scientist says against the thesis over what another one says in favor of it?

    No good grounds at all.

    I know why I have preferred the skeptical scientists and science writers, but the reasons aren't good ones because they aren't scientific."

    or this article: Climate Change: What if they're right?
    http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=6607

    As so many have said here - we should read references from people we disagree with - and then challenge them on their ideas - not on their person or their funders....
    :)

    You left out some of Fred Singer's bio info

    is to prove that climate cycles are just that - cyclical. That said though - even though we have little ability to influence these cycles - we can learn that we could better stewards of our surroundings - is that a fair statement?

    If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

    ...but some won't like that, because if it isn't a dire problem that needs to be solved, the discussion of balancing costs with outcomes comes into play...and I just read where the UN is meeting in some southern clime with the idea that the industrialized nations should spend billions while other countries (China and India) should have little to no requirements or cost burdens.

    So, while you've made a very good point, it opens the door for an economic discussion discussion of cost benefit analysis - and that isn't what some on the extremes want...

    Good article - thanks! Interesting spins on the consensus process among science. And patently distorts the scientific expertise of the panel ~ there are hundreds of non-scientists involved, as well as hundreds of scientific reviewers involved. It's a massive advisory group! And it'd be silly to think that the entire group of hundreds of advisors would all agree. Of course it'd only be a smaller group that would author the reports and sign the consensus. And that it'd torque off members of their own panels. By the way, quite a bit of the dissention in the article that is listed is that the report does not adequately state the dangers of global warming. In trying to do a consensus report, the outcomes of the process usually hovers around a conservative estimate in order to achieve consensus. And look at the audience ~ if he'd done this speech to research faculty at a research institution like here at UT, the Q&A would have lambasted him for his inaccuracies. I remember when John Marburger (the president's science advisor) spoke at UT - it was interesting. He was cagey about trying to reconcile Bush's policies with the actual understanding of science. But he know it'd be a rough road if he didn't.

    Yes, climates change over time. Antarctica might have been tropical once. Although, Antarctica has only been,well, antarctica and at the south pole for the past couple hundred million years (plate tectonics and all that jazz). That's if you don't believe the Creation Museum story, but that's another post for another time ;)

    And no one says that there aren't significant natural factors to global warming, that they are massive. And there are natural patterns out there of heating/cooling, indeed. But although not completely understood by people who have studied those for decades (yet we non-scientists throw those about without having a clue as to what they are and mean), they are considered in the process of developing our current understanding of climate and into our production of models. Are they perfect - heck no. But they're good, and getting better. And man-made contributions add more than a pittance to the overall melange ~ we know that. And helps amplify and create unnatural feedback loops in natural cycles that exacerbate the problems.

    The politicizing of the process is the tricky part - and I'm pretty glad that there is a public fervor growing to balance the patent irresponsibility of the current administration. I just hope that a better balance is to be had down the road...To just say we will adapt to whatever comes is an approach, I guess, but that, too, seems irresponsible as well. I mean, understand that in America we're pretty damn lucky by our wealth and access to resources relative to the rest of the world. Historically, when we think about the types of changes we face here, we need to be upfront and say that when access to resources change, that leads to massive confrontations and struggle to gain rights to those same resources. And as climatic patterns change, that means death, spread of disease, starvation.

    BTW, some of the recent research about "model prediction" being not accurate come from the models UNDERPREDICTING the data of ice thaw and CO2 emissions seen the past year. Extra sources of carbon release are amplifying the problem, such as the not-anticipated release of CO2 from the permafrost areas as they no longer stay permafrost.

    Here’s a great graphic showing human contribution
    to CO2 levels compared to nature’s contributions:

    If we scale our total atmosphere at 100mm high (graphic below)

    then the total CO2 in it is 0.0566mm high - quite invisible!

    so let’s increase the scale by a factor of 10. The scale now is 10 times bigger than the previous one, 1,000mm in height : scroll down please . . . .

    Welcome to the bit that all the fuss is about . . .
    Total atmosphere = 1000mm, total CO2 = 0.566mm.
    This can still barely be shown at this scale, but it is visible. Man-made emissions are still not visible though.

    To see the proportion of man-made emissions a little better, we need to blow up the scale by a further factor of 10. So now, total CO2 is 5.66mm high (red) and man-made emissions are 1.58mm high (yellow). This equates to 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere, almost invisible!

    If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    At what level of education did your knowledge of science come to a screeching halt?

    This chart was not of my making. I am not even saying that I agree with it. It is simply an interesting graphic I discovered while googling this subject and thought fitting towards this duscussion.

    I will say that, as one who has a sibling who is a member of PBI and cares for Polar Bears on a daily basis I have been presented with overwhelming input on the effect Global Warming has on these magnificant creatures. But...I do not agree that the responsible cause of this warming is primarily on the shoulders of mankind.

    In fact, Maggie described my beliefs exactly in her point of view response to this poll. And, amazingly, my brother has reached this same conclusion even though he may be what some might describe as an environmental psycho.

    If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    you rag on me as being stupid, I realize I have a typo in the word *discussion*. Unfortunately, The new SB isn't allowing me to edit the comment and correct it.

    If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

    Your silly little graphic PRIMARILY made a comparison of ALL CO2 to the ENTIRE atmosphere. THAT was the propaganda behind the posting, whether you intended it or not, which sparked my derisive response.

    Shall I stoop to quoting your "almost invisible"? CO2 IS INVISIBLE TO VISIBLE WAVELENGTHS! It's the longer wavelengths that concern us; those longer wavelengths are emitted by the Earth; and the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more opaque it is to the out-going emissions.

    P.S. Get the Firefox web browser and you won't have to suffer misspellings again. Firefox is available for every major computer platform.

    Krazykat's blogger posted this at the bottom of his blog:

    "Can anybody explain to me how such an insignificant quantity of a gaseous substance can possible heat up the entire column of air?"

    I believe the World Meteorological Organization (pdf file) has the answer:

    "CO2 is the single most important infrared absorbing, anthropogenic gas in the atmosphere and is responsible for 63% of the total radiative forcing of Earth by long-lived greenhouse gases. Its contribution to the increase in radiative forcing is 87% for the past decade and 91% for the last five years. "

    ...'the chief greenhouse gas that causes global warming' ...

    Today's Blade article on the coking plant is my reference for the above description...including a statement that the state EPA doesn't regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

    And what do we exhale when we breathe? Carbon dioxide. Can you just imagine the government deciding that carbon dioxide needs to be regulated and then trying to figure out how to control our breathing? LOL

    But this isn't that far-fetched. According to this article, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT200... Californians for Population Stabilization thinks there are too many people.

    "If we had half as many people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem..."

    But they think it's that there are too many AMERICANS...the article doesn't mention other countries with greater population.

    (clarification: this group is primarily focused on overpopulation in California, but these statements from the article are generalized and not specific to their state.)

    It's these kinds of extreme things that really turn people off on the issue...

    I did not see this statement in the article--including a statement that the state EPA doesn't regulate carbon dioxide emissions

    This would be interesting since the Supreme Court said the EPA CAN regulate greenhouse gases.

    We pee ammonia, but the government regulates businesses on it's emissions.

    ...SensorG - hopefully you're peeing into a toilet whose contents then get runsthrough the sewage treatment plants...one of those government functions which makes sense to do on a combined level rather than individually.

    And, if we didn't have sewage treatment plants to take care of this for us, is it likely that government would regulate individual homes on this issue? They have regulations requiring septic tanks, after all...

    ...I can't edit my own post...should be:

    "whose contents then get run through..."

    sorry...

    "In addition to its potential for releasing 51 pounds of mercury a year, it could release as many as a million tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas that causes global warming.

    Even Mr. Hopkins didn't know that. He got that figure during the meeting from Matt Stanfield, of Toledo's Division of Environmental Services.

    "The problem for us is we don't even have a limit [for carbon dioxide] in this permit. I don't have a rule yet for [carbon dioxide]," Mr. Hopkins said, explaining that his and other state agencies are waiting for anticipated legislation in Congress."

    Seems this says that they don't have authority (rule) for carbon dioxide???? What do you think?

    Wow I completely missed that. Sorry--yeah it sure looks like that. So I guess the Supreme Court ruled the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases, but it just hasn't been legislated how to do it, and when to start. Interesting.

    On states' efforts to regulate CO2. It's mainly about coal-fired power-plants. But the main point I got out of it, is that Kansas has gone ahead and started regulating CO2 emissions. Whereas the Ohio EPA is waiting on Congress to do this for them. According to Ohio's EPA Director Chris Korleski, "That's just not an approach that we are prepared to take here in Ohio". So they CAN do it, they just won't.

    According to this article in Forbes, many large corporations are demanding greenhouse gases be cut in half by 2050. Interesting list of companies:

    Shell UK
    GE International
    Dupont Co.
    United Technologies Corp.
    Rolls Royce
    Nestle SA
    Unilever
    British Airways
    Volkswagen AG
    and.....Coca-Cola Co.

    So in one article we have Coca-Cola demanding greenhouse gases be cut in half by 2050. In another, we have the Ohio EPA stumping for them to relax the regulations. So....the citizens want tough CO2 regulations...Coca Cola wants tougher CO2 regulations....but the Ohio EPA refuses to regulate CO2

    very interesting, indeed...

    agreed 100% with Maggie on her initial post. Man can only do so much.

    ----------------------

    BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

    _________________
    "They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

    Funny story here regarding climate skeptics

    ...but not funny - at least, not to me.

    the article implies that the only ones who are willing to accept anything simply because it agrees with a pre-conceived notion are the 'global warming skeptics'... but the same is true of 'global warming believers' as well, even if they haven't been 'hoaxed' (though some would say that's what Gore's done ... lol)

    and does anyone else find it disconcerting that the language used these days on the issue of global warming is filled with religious-type references????

    ...aren't the only ones who can be 'hoaxed.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_ar...

    "Polar bears on the brink? Don't you believe it"

    According to the article you cited, ""Of course, in 30 years, if there's no ice over the North Pole, then the bear will be in trouble. But I've seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the brink of extinction." [my emphasis]

    Thirty years is not a long time.

    what religious references are you referring to?

    ...terminology: believers, skeptics, deniers, etc... such terms are often used when discussing religion...

    This is an interesting article on what we can do, in regards to the pollution that we create.

    Why not, religion sells the issue much more.

    But then again, some of the religions do not profess to use the earth and all its resources as they were given to us to do so, by God.
    Some actually live in harmony and do not view the earth and its resources to be used to make money and then dump waste on the earth and pollute and damage the planet.
    The main references to religion now seem to be from the followers who have realized that the gift is finite and not boundless and seek to stop the temptation to destroy more of the gift before it's too late.
    http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog