A Global Warming Poll

I voted none of the above...

honestly, I really care very little. It's merely something I hear being talked about here and there... Although giving it maybe 2 mins. of thought, I don't think anyone can draw any real conclusions in the absence of some form of concrete, and reliable data from thousands, if not millions, of years in time...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 3 2006, 11:30 PM) [snapback]280800[/snapback]</div>

SO, why drive a Prius? If you care very little.

And the next time a Record Hurricane Season/Huge Blizzard/Flood Of Epic Proportions shows up, could you/would you explain to me how that has nothing to do with global warming?

 

I don't know how any person who has looked into the issue does not accept that there is warming. I have seen many photos of glaciers and mountain ice packs receding over the past 100 years.

However, the PROOF that it is due to humans and emissions is less clear (as opposed to natural cycles) I mean, just how do you reconcile the receding glaciers from thousands/millions of years ago with this?

Lastly, even if the U.S. stopped emissions, the third world countries would just make up for it. Humans are here, and they will continue doing what we do.

Lastly, the alarmists have been proven wrong many times of their predictions of what will occur in the near future.

So, global warming...yes, humans causing it...not sure, we can stop it...not likely.

 

It's difficult to tell precisely what's going on. Are we in a warming trend? Yes. Is the rate of change faster than what we see in the paleo-climate data we have? It very much looks that way. Is sole source anthropogenic? Probably not. I think we're exacerbating things but no one can tell how much. We just don't have the data and no one's built a good enough model yet. I was just chatting about this very issue last night with a friend who works at NOAA. That said, I think we're foolish to go on throwing away finite resources. We are, however, slowly but surely getting ourselves on the right path. Unfortunately, we'll need economics to goad us in the right direction.

Second, Squid... You've made it to FLA! Finally out of Dracut huh? Just in time for the summer storm season.

 

I am a science lover, and engineer who believes in global warming. I also believe that human industry plays a significant role.
One of the reasons for conflicting studies, and continued confusion on this issue is the phenomenon of "global dimming".
Global dimming, caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere, is actually masking the effect of global warming. As stiffer environmental regulations, and cleaner technologies have reduced particulate emissions, this "mask" is being lifted. We may soon learn that the true rate of global warming is in fact much greater than even the alarmists suspected.
The PBS television series Nova did a feature on Global Dimming. Additional information available online from many sources including:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jul 4 2006, 11:56 PM) [snapback]281239[/snapback]</div>

Why does anyone need more proof we are causing global warming. You said it yourself: glaciers are melting. Obviously if they melted before during natural cycles we couuld not get core samples of ice back over thousands of years and we'd have no data to even argue about.

And exactly what alarmists have been proven wrong? I can't think of even one.

I remember when DDT was save, smoking was save, nuclear fallout was safe, mercury was safe enough to play with and contamination of fish was not even an issue.

Are there some warnings you don't believe in that I have not heard of yet, or do you consider some of these things alarmists warned us about for years before they became mainstream, aren't problems at all?

 

I 'believe' in global warming, though I think it's more a matter of accepting reality. I just don't get it when people don't get it. OK, so we can't say with absolute precision what the temperature of the water covering Ouagadougou will be at 5pm on the thirteenth of October, 2061. Argue all you like, I'm gonna keep bailing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jul 5 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]281525[/snapback]</div>

You are right, BUT I also remember being taught in school and reading in the papers (in the 70's) that by the turn of the century the world population would be WAY more than the earth could normally support, we would be COMPLETELY out of oil, fresh water would be virtually non-existent, daily smog would choke daily virtually every major metropolitan area, it wasn't a question of IF but WHEN we would have a devastating nuclear war with the Soviet Union...

Once you've seen a few generations of these so-called dire predictions come and go you realize a lot of it is false. But they all make good politics and that's where the money is (books, popular politcal positions, etc). Politics is the key...

The EU bureaucrats are masters of the art. Carbon trading schemes most likely will do little to reduce manmade CO2 outputs that are claimed to be instrumental in global warming. But many bureaucrats (thousands, dare I say 10's of thousands) will benefit from increased taxes and fees the average consumer will be forced to pay. Why just today, the EU is proposing that airline passengers pay significantly more in taxes for just such a scheme.

Soon only the wealthy will be able to enjoy the benefits of reasonable vehicle and air travel in the future.

Rick
driving a smog, CO2 producing, oil using 2006 Prius

 

bump

 

Global warming, yes. It's been obvious since 20+ years ago.

Humans causing it, yes. The current natural cycle of the earth would have been another ice age if it weren't for us humans.

Can we stop it, probably not until it's too late. But, we will see. The global warming effect kind of bailed us out on another ice age.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jul 6 2006, 06:21 AM) [snapback]281598[/snapback]</div>

Huh? The world population IS way more than the earth can normally support. What part of that is exaggerating? Superior agriculture technology is bailing us out as we speak.

We would completely run out of oil? Who said that? They predicted that we'd run out of CHEAP oil. They were only off in this particular prediction by about 20 years thanks to the many big finds in the last 20 years. Maybe a couple of BIG oil finds will bail us out for another 20 years. But the point is, it's a limited commodity, and we should invent alternatives while we still can.

daily smog would choke daily virtually every major metropolitan area. It does right now.

You don't know how close we came to a full scale war with the Soviet Union.

Jimmy

P.S. Oil isn't gone, but CHEAP oil is probably gone (unless we get that big find off the coast of Russia).

 

Let's look at a summary of the data so far. Concentrate on panel B. The black line represents temperature and the orange line CO2 levels from 400,000 years in the past to the present. Note how temperature seems to lag just a bit behind C02 levels.

There is no dispute by anyone that this graph is accurate.

If you were a gambling person, would you bet your sons or grandsons future on the fact that it might be all coincidence?

Cheers,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 3 2006, 10:30 PM) [snapback]280800[/snapback]</div>

I think there is so much data missing is it not even funny.. sure green house gases are on the rise, Plant more trees, grass. And, what effect did the rise in sun spot activity have to do with the temp??? are we in a 7 year cycle, 11 year cycle, 22 year cycle, 10,000 year cycle... who knows... and no way to have that historical data...

But, yes it would be best for all if we were to cut back on evey thing, even population.

I remember reading about a Volcano (Mexico way i think) that belched out more Green House gases than all the cars could do in 10 years. But, we did have more plant life back then (trees).

What I really think, even if the US was to cut back/stop today it would not make a hill of beans... in less than 3 years we will be small fry compared to India and China... Go ask them to stop too..

just my $0.05 worth..

 

for anyone who does not think we are causing global warming, did you miss the announcement made a month or so ago confirming "almost undeniable evidence" that actions by man are accelerating global warming?

even if we ignore the scandal by whoever to water down the report from congress about global warming, the other evidence still shows that we are not reflecting a sufficient amount of energy back into space to maintain the planets temperature.

i contend that neighsayers only exist because of the huge coverup denying global warming by oil companies, automobile manufacturers (can we say gm and its 11 mpg hummerss? which coincidentally have a MUCH higher profit margin than other smaller and more efficient cars?) and other political interests.

its nearly unamonymous in the scientific community that we are acceleratin global warming. hard to believe that the public (as always) chooses to believe a lying elected official.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pjm877 @ Aug 8 2006, 09:02 PM) [snapback]299942[/snapback]</div>

We are approaching a solar minimum in the 11-year cycle. Data exists from about the 1600's.

Not sure about India, but China has stricter emission standards than we do on automobiles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 9 2006, 01:08 PM) [snapback]300315[/snapback]</div>

I don't know about emissions but we have the worst mpg standards in the world. I'll post the graph later..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pjm877 @ Aug 8 2006, 07:02 PM) [snapback]299942[/snapback]</div>

so ok then, whats our options??

stop the volcano or reduce our contribution of greenhouse gases?

well i know the one i'd rather tackle

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 9 2006, 01:14 PM) [snapback]300322[/snapback]</div>

And here it is. The numbers on the vertical axis represent the minimum mpg a manufacturer in that country is required by law to manufacture at least one model.

And where does public uncertainty comes from. Its manufactured. Out of 10% sample (928) of all peer-reviewed papers in the past 10 years discussing climate change 0% doubted there was a human component.

Out of 636 papers published in the popular press, 53% presented the opposite view, that is, no human component.

Cheers,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 8 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]299928[/snapback]</div>

Could you please explain to me how they know the temp's and CO2 levels 400,000 years ago?

Inquiring minds would want to know. <_<

Wildkow