English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The earth has been very hot and very cold throughout it's history, aren't we being a little self-critical of humankind to blame ourselves for Global Warming, it might just be a phase the Earth is going through.

2006-11-03 11:50:26 · 17 answers · asked by Duncan S 2 in Science & Mathematics Earth Sciences & Geology

And if we are doing it 'for the kids' then our kids, will do it for their kids and so on and so on. Generations of people who can't drive 4x4's and having to sit with poor people on buses all for the kids! Sod that, I'm keeping the Jeep, my kids can swivel.

2006-11-03 12:09:23 · update #1

Life is for LIVING, not worrying about crap that will happen after you die.

2006-11-03 12:10:56 · update #2

17 answers

The theory that the world was once ice that you are talking about is called snow ball earth. Off the top of my head i can not remember the names of the scientists that came up with the theory. The claimed that they found evidence of rocks deformed by ice in Africa (near the equator). Which was not disbuted. The problem is that once the earth was covered in ice how did it melt? There are several theories to this but i dont really believe them. One is that volcanics in areas of weak ice erupted masses of co2 which allowed for thew atmosphere to rapidly (a few hundred thousand years). But on the other hand the solar radiation (i.e heat) would have been reflected by the ice. For more informatio look it up on ther web.

In the earths history there have been many phases of glacial (cold) and interglacial periods so what you are saying is theoretically correct. However there is undisbuted evidence that we have accelarated the proccess of global warming. Naturally these cycles of heating and cooling take thousands of years but we have seen increases of 1-2 degrees in a few decades which, according to records is unprecedented.

2006-11-03 21:13:02 · answer #1 · answered by CW 2 · 0 0

I think the point is that no one is disputing that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling it's just that carbon based pollution has increased the speed that the increase is happening within the cycle. So global warming would be happening anyway to a certain extent but is greatly increased in impact by the speed at which it is happening due to human pollution in the last 100-150 years.

Another thing is that when the earth was very hot humans weren't around and when it was last very cold the ancestors of humans lived in caves and didn't cover 8/10's of the world with people likely to die due to the changes in weather and the sea level rising.

Although some of the alarmist propaganda about global warming is a bit too much the fact is that in 50 years time we will be right in the **** if we don't do something to stop being so dependant on carbon based energy now.

I assume you don't have children so aren't that bothered about what sort of world they will live in. As I have 3 I'm slightly concerned.

2006-11-03 12:02:55 · answer #2 · answered by Martin G 4 · 0 0

We are so bothered about Global Warming, because many of us are so worried about what scientists say~ Half of them say, oh, its a natural process. Others say, oh we'll all die. Others suggest otherwise.

My point is, we KNOW that we are changing the global temperature.

The last time we had an ice age or a "very hot time"

HUMANS DID NOT EXIST. Now global warming could possibly lead to another Ice Age, or another "very hot time", in which we humans will be in.

Yes, it might just be a phase Earth is going through. But then again, there is firm, substantial evidence that proves our harm towards the environment! There is EVIDENCE that we are increasing the global temperature!

Then again, Earth might go through a phase that'll cool us all down again. [Ice caps melting, more sea levels, more clouds, blocks sun rays, less heat coming in, Earth gradually cools down]. But then again, as likely as that may come, Earth could also cool down to an extent where we humans cannot thrive in its arid/freezing temperatures/climates.

Ok. Let me edit my point.

My point is that we KNOW that we are affecting the Earth negatively, and are not increasing our efforts to impede Earth's destruction. As this happens, Earth's temperatures travel to a point where it threatens our very existence.

We are bothered by it because we are offering an endless "support" of Global Warming [which potentially could lead to disasters], by driving cars, releasing emissions, and ignoring environmental issues.

<<<<<<<<<

2006-11-03 15:13:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Let's put it this way - some scientists may be idiots, but is it likely that most of them are? They know very well that the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past. Yet most scientists who know about such things firmly assert that most of the recent global warming is a human-caused phenomenon. There's a couple reasons why:

THE RATE OF CHANGE. Biologists have measured how long it takes animals and plants to 'migrate'... or to change their habitats so they same in roughly the same kind of environment. You would think that pretty much all of them would be fairly evolved to make such changes as the Earth's environment changed throughout its history. Yet the rate of temperature increase we're seeing far outstrips most of their abilities to compensate. If it continues unabated, we may see huge-scale decimations of plant and animal wildlife.

COMPARISONS TO THE PAST. Right now the carbon dioxide level is VERY high. Our most accurate measurements can only reach back 650,000 years, and it's never been as high during that time as it is now. Using less accurate measurements, you would have to go back 40 million years to get to an analogous carbon dioxide level. Atmospheric methane shows a similar trend. Most of this change can be traced back to human activity chronologically.

WE KNOW WE CAN AFFECT THINGS GLOBALLY. Remember that hole in the ozone layer? It's still there, and bigger than ever, actually. Not to mention extinction of species we know we've caused, habitats we know we've wiped out, and other large-scale changes.

But sweeping that all aside for a second, suppose we're NOT at fault for ANY of it. Does it really matter? Wouldn't it behoove us to counteract a global temperature change before it inhibited our activities too severely. To put it another way - even if we haven't affected global systems in the past, it is in our interest to do so in the future. Even if global warming is completely natural, not stopping it could have major negative side effects!

2006-11-03 12:02:37 · answer #4 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0 0

Some of us are self-critical and a little silly to think they know that they are affecting the climate. Earth was once in an Ice Age where there were far more extensive glaciers than today and there were periods that were hotter. We are in a relatively warm period right now though. Warm is good in my opinion. Even the most extreme "global warming" zealot generally doesn't try to imply humans have caused more than a degree of warming. Clearly, it is just a phase.

2006-11-03 11:52:50 · answer #5 · answered by JimZ 7 · 0 1

The earth is more populated now, that's what the concern is. An Ice Age would be pretty bad too. The present day global warming effect is exacerbated by pollution caused by overpopulation with causes more pollution, in a vicious circle. In a runaway greenhouse effect scenario, the earth's oceans would boil off. Not very hospitable to life. What was it, "the fire next time"?

2006-11-03 11:54:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

One reason why we should be bothered by Global Warming is that the earth is approaching temperatures it hasn't seen since the Carboniferous Era, and in those days, the bugs were HUGE. Dragonflies a foot wide. Millipedes lethal enough to kill humans. And don't ask about the mosquitos. Insects just LOVE very warm climes. Do we really want this?

2006-11-03 19:33:09 · answer #7 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 0 0

A signifigant change in the average global temperature would serve to decimate the population, whether or not it was caused by humankind. Coastal areas flooded. Weather patterns severely disrupted. Land made useless for agriculture. One would only be bothered if they gave a damn about future generations. If not, then, no, no reason to worry.

2006-11-03 12:01:52 · answer #8 · answered by solita 2 · 0 0

Rapid climate change is what we are looking at. There are a lot of cities at sea level along the coasts. Think about a "Katrina" event for all of those cities. There will be a lot of suffering. A lot of corporate losses. And most importantly a lot of beachfront homes washed out to see. Those are just a few of the human costs.

2006-11-03 11:59:30 · answer #9 · answered by timespiral 4 · 0 0

The difference is the pace of change...the changes you talked about happened over thousands of years...the impact the last 200 years is having should not be ignored, especially when taking into account the developing nations like China, India and several others.

2006-11-03 11:54:23 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Glenn 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers