Global warming or natural effects?

[Disney1fan2002]

I was just wondering, with all this talk about global warming and how we are ruining the earth, what if the earth would be doing this regardless? I mean, has anyone considered that maybe earth as a planet may have a life span? That maybe someday, it will just explode, and would of whether life was on it or not?

Wasn't the earth covered in ice, and then it melted? Humans certainly did not have any effect on that warming. What if the earth has been heating up for millions of years, and because we have the technology, we can now track it.

If educated people want to debate this, excuse me while I step aside and just read. I certainly do not have the brain power to discuss this, as I know nothing about what is going on with the earth and warming, I am just wondering if it is something that may be happening without any help from us.

Then we have the people who refuse to believe the earth is warming. Whether or not it is, I can tell you, the winter's of my youth were much different than the winter's of today. So something is going on.

 

[Kimberly]

Wasn't the earth covered in ice, and then it melted? Humans certainly did not have any effect on that warming. What if the earth has been heating up for millions of years, and because we have the technology, we can now track it.

Historial records in the Journal of the American Chemical Society have shown that the carbon cycle and the abundance of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is directly related to the temperature in the Earth's atmosphere. This is pure speculation on this next part, but it is believe that with reduced polar ice caps or none at all, it is possible for snowfall to occur and increased precipitation to occur at lower latitudes. This can signal the onset of a cool down period as the snow at the lower latitudes will reflect most of the Sun's energy back out of the atmosphere. There's another aspect to look at too in all of this global warming. There is also is the aspect with the movement of currents that keep the oceans on the east coast warm, and those on the west coast cool. With the destruction of the ice caps, these "rivers" will shut down as a result of the increasing warmth far from the poles. This was briefly covered in "The Day After Tommorrow" and I'm almost ashamed of using it as a reference, but they went over the major points of it fairly well in that movie. Granted there won't be a single storm that may bring in a global cooling period, but that's hollywood for you.

Current scientific acceptance is that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere are causing an increase in the average global temperature. There have been countless experiments to prove this.

Sorry for the rambling!

 

[Fore2213]

The earth is going through its natural cycle.......if it was time for an ice age, all we would hear about is Global Cooling. Global Warming is completely fiction made up by left wing loonies!!! Dont believe the hype....espcially when most meterologists agree its fake!!!

 

[NewJersey]

Global Warming is DEFINITELY happening. Even the Bush administration is starting to come around.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, I think everyone agrees we need to reduce our impact on this planet and curb pollution.

 

[DawnCt1]

The earth is going through its natural cycle.......if it was time for an ice age, all we would hear about is Global Cooling. Global Warming is completely fiction made up by left wing loonies!!! Dont believe the hype....espcially when most meterologists agree its fake!!!

Global Warming is a reality. We are going through a warming trend. I think however that it is grandeous to think that humans can actually reverse the trend. http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/8391/2007-01-31.html

There are two new books that scientifically discuss this. Unfortunately there are scientists who are denied funding if they don't jump on the global warming is due to man, band wagon.

 

[Charade]

Global Warming is DEFINITELY happening. Even the Bush administration is starting to come around.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, I think everyone agrees we need to reduce our impact on this planet and curb pollution.

I said on another thread that I don't think there is anyone who can deny there are changes occuring. The only real debate is what's causing it. I tend to lean on the side that human activities do not have a significant impact and the earth is going through a natural change.

But that doesn't mean that I condone wasting resources.

 

[Fore2213]

Sorry, i wont drink the Kool-Aid......The Administration is just payin lip service, as they should!!!

Global Warming is DEFINITELY happening. Even the Bush administration is starting to come around.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, I think everyone agrees we need to reduce our impact on this planet and curb pollution.

 

[sha_lyn]

I said on another thread that I don't think there is anyone who can deny there are changes occuring. The only real debate is what's causing it. I tend to lean on the side that human activities do not have a significant impact and the earth is going through a natural change.

But that doesn't mean that I condone wasting resources.

ITA

 

[Beca]

All scientific data shows that the earth's warming started to significantly increase when CO2 started going up. CO2 started going up initially at the birth of industrialization, but did a major jump when automobiles became the norm. They are, in fact, straight line graphs.

Here's a link to some graphs provided by PBS. Look at the levels of CO2 in the last 450,000 years, and look where it is since cars became a staple. Considering the number of CO2 gasses emitted by cars (and other industrial pollution), you'd have to have some serious blinders on to say it is not "us".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

 

[honeymom]

The earth is going through its natural cycle.......if it was time for an ice age, all we would hear about is Global Cooling. Global Warming is completely fiction made up by left wing loonies!!! Dont believe the hype....espcially when most meterologists agree its fake!!!

I've seen the opposite - A few meterologists think its fake, but from what I've read the vast majority believe in it. Plus, I used to write for a weather news service and out of curiousity I asked two of their meteorologists for their opinions (they are scientists, not mere tv weathermen). In their opinion global warming was happening.

I'm not a scientist. I don't think that most of the posters on this board are scientists. Yet everybody is so absolutely convinced that either global warming is definitely happening, or global warming is definitely not happening based mostly on their political persuasion. One thing that I do know, I have lived in enough polluted cities to know that we can be doing better by mother earth. None of us needs to breath the junk that's in the air. Whether or not it causes global warming, we should all do our part to improve the environment.

 

[Charade]

All scientific data shows that the earth's warming started to significantly increase when CO2 started going up. CO2 started going up initially at the birth of industrialization, but did a major jump when automobiles became the norm. They are, in fact, straight line graphs.

Here's a link to some graphs provided by PBS. Look at the levels of CO2 in the last 450,000 years, and look where it is since cars became a staple. Considering the number of CO2 gasses emitted by cars (and other industrial pollution), you'd have to have some serious blinders on to say it is not "us".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

There were no cars or industries during the Medivial warming period. How does Al Gore's movie address that?

The last chart shows what appears to be a 50,000 (or so) year cycle in CO2 levels. The industrial age starts around the top of the last cycle. How did those lower C02 levels affect the global climate?



I've also read that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and it's much more abundant that CO2.

 

[DizParks]

The Earth has natural cycles. The question is if we are speeding up this cycle. Technically we are still in an ice age, because of there still being ice caps. It is true that H2Ov, water vapor, is the main green house gas at around 85%. We can't change that. CO2 is at #2 with about 10-13% or so and that is increasing.

 

[sha_lyn]

if you look at the last chart on the page that Becca posted, you can clearly see a pattern. Yes the levels are the highest, but their increase seems to fall right inline with the earths natural patterns. I would like to see the same chart, but lager/marked more accurately for levels and yrs. My "gut" feeling is that yes we have contributed to the numbers, but our contribution is very small compared to what would naturally occur

 

[Beca]

There were no cars or industries during the Medivial warming period. How does Al Gore's movie address that?

The last chart shows what appears to be a 50,000 (or so) year cycle in CO2 levels. The industrial age starts around the top of the last cycle. How did those lower C02 levels affect the global climate?



I've also read that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and it's much more abundant that CO2.

Mr. Gore addresses this by discussing the differences between "natural trends" and the huge, sudden change we have seen (in geologic time). There is no "trend"....the line showing levels of CO2 is almost vertical when you compare the graph with the 450,000-600,000 years of data we have. The scary part is not so much where the temperature is currently, but rather how quickly the CO2 levels are changing when compared to the "trends" we have historically seen.

Another interesting fact, is that we are right in line with what scientists in the 1960's said would happen if CO2 levels continued to rise. Their predictions thus far have held.

Yes, water vapor is most of our greenhouse gases. However, that statement alone can be very misleading. In addition to the % of a gas trapped in our atmosphere, one must look at the atmospheric lifetime, and the GWP of each of the greenhouse gases. Water vapor may be prevalent, however it evaporates/disseminates (depending upon its location in the atmosphere) sometimes in as little as a few days. Although the GWP of water vapor is still unknown, science's "best guess" puts the GWP somewhere between 0.5-3.0. However, it is my understanding that level is per molecule, per year (and many water vapor molecules do not last that long...although, admittedly the number of molecules stays about the same).

When you compare those rates to the other greenhouse gases, you can see that other factors need to be considered. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"Two scales can be used to describe the effect of different gases in the atmosphere. The first, the atmospheric lifetime, describes how long it takes to restore the system to equilibrium following a small increase in the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere. Individual molecules may interchange with other reservoirs such as soil, the oceans, and biological systems, but the mean lifetime refers to the decaying away of the excess. It is sometimes erroneously claimed that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being removed by mixing into the ocean, uptake by photosynthesis, or other processes. This ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs. It is the net concentration changes of the various greenhouse gases by all sources and sinks that determines atmospheric lifetime, not just the removal processes.

The second scale is global warming potential (GWP). The GWP depends on both the efficiency of the molecule as a greenhouse gas and its atmospheric lifetime. GWP is measured relative to the same mass of CO2 and evaluated for a specific timescale. Thus, if a molecule has a high GWP on a short time scale (say 20 years) but has only a short lifetime, it will have a large GWP on a 20 year scale but a small one on a 100 year scale. Conversely, if a molecule has a longer atmospheric lifetime than CO2 its GWP will increase with time.

Examples of the atmospheric lifetime and GWP for several greenhouse gases include:

CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime (approximately 200-450 years for small perturbations). Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.[10][11] Carbon dioxide is defined to have a GWP of 1 over all time periods.
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years and a GWP of 62 over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide has an atmospheric lifetime of 120 years and a GWP of 296 over 100 years.
CFC-12 has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years and a GWP(100) of 10600.
HCFC-22 has an atmospheric lifetime of 12.1 years and a GWP(100) of 1700.
Tetrafluoromethane has an atmospheric lifetime of 50,000 years and a GWP(100) of 5700.
Sulfur hexafluoride has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a GWP(100) of 22000."

By looking at the above data, one can easily see that CO2 is NOT the "worst offender" of the bunch. However, when you consider the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, it is easy to see why CO2 is an issue that needs to be addressed....it is an offender in number, potency, and lifespan.

The other reason for NOT "going after" water vapor is that it is an entirely natural occurrence....we are having no effect on it.

I read something that pretty much hit home with me the other day. It was a quote that said, "Considering the consequences of no action, and the role we are most likely playing in such consequences, the burden of proof should be placed on the nay-sayers rather than the other way around." I couldn't agree more.

 

[poohandwendy]

I said on another thread that I don't think there is anyone who can deny there are changes occuring. The only real debate is what's causing it. I tend to lean on the side that human activities do not have a significant impact and the earth is going through a natural change.

But that doesn't mean that I condone wasting resources.

I'm in total agreement.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I think most people agree that global warming exists, it seems that the main point of contention is the cause and the cure.
A lot of the problem that the conservation movement has is that it is promoted by people who seem to enjoy telling "the little people" what kind of car to drive,how low to set their thermostat in the winter and how high to set it in the summer-while at the same time they fly private jets, heat and cool their multiple homes, travel in limos and live in their own NIMBY universe. It's really easy to spot hypocrisy like that and it turns people off.
I noticed in Al Gore's film, he's riding in limos but at least he's flying regular planes with the common folk. Patrick and Ted Kennedy are all about telling people how to conserve energy, until the wind farm might block the ocean view from the Compound. John Kerry standing there talking about conservation with his 3 or 4 mansions just made me laugh. don't even get me started on the Hollywood folks.

I do what I can. I work at home 2 days a week to keep the car off the road, when I do drive I combine as many trips as possible, I'm replacing my conventional lightbulbs with the new flourescant ones, I buy energy star appliances when the old ones die, and recycling as much as I can. I think if we all do a little and businesses do a little, it will make a difference. It did with the ozone layer.

 

[U2_rocks!]

if you look at the last chart on the page that Becca posted, you can clearly see a pattern. Yes the levels are the highest, but their increase seems to fall right inline with the earths natural patterns. I would like to see the same chart, but lager/marked more accurately for levels and yrs. My "gut" feeling is that yes we have contributed to the numbers, but our contribution is very small compared to what would naturally occur

This is my current view. I think we have a small effect, but we alone are not causing the warming up of the earth. I do think we need to protect our natural world, for a variety of reasons, not just to halt the warming (I don't think we can actually do that).

 

[beagle744]

I think global warming is happening. I can't attest as to whether the cause is natural, man-made, or both.

But common sense tells us that by putting gases, particulants or other pollutants into our atmosphere, in quantities that are not naturally present, it is going to have some effect on the environment as well as on the health of humans, animals and plant life.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

So, if the earth is warming, as most of us know it is, either by nature or by humans, what will happen to the animals who can only survive in cold weather? (peguins, polar bears, ect?) Do you think they will evolve to adapt or will they die off?

 

[sha_lyn]

So, if the earth is warming, as most of us know it is, either by nature or by humans, what will happen to the animals who can only survive in cold weather? (peguins, polar bears, ect?) Do you think they will evolve to adapt or will they die off?

I'm no expert by far, but from what I understand both has/can happen. Some animals adapt, others die off.