For those of you that believe we are causing global warming?

Question

I got a few questions for you.

Can anyone explain the midevil warming period? Temperatures then are warmer than they are now. We have proof that vikings once farmed in areas of greenland currently covered in ice. Why were temperatures so high then? Was it the pollution from their "cars"? Or the fossil fuels they burned? Didn't exist then right. It was caused by the same greenhouse affect that is raising our temperatures today.

The answer is water vapor. Statistics shown by the media show the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, or human caused greenhouse effect. There is more to the greenhouse effect than that. It was discovered in 1824 but existed long before that. The anthropogenic greenhouse effect only accounts for .28% of the total greenhouse effect. Water vapor, which is naturally occuring, by far is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, which is actually a good thing. Without it our world temperatures would be 30 degrees F lower. This explains our history.

here is a link to a site showing some graphs to help you understand this information
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
my email is [e-mail] if you have any questions

Answer 1

Yup, the enviromentals found a bandwagon when the smartest people in the world the Hollywood elite took up their cause and the politicos decide to jump on board. Yawnnnn yes let's all take our science and believe systems on Global Warming from those intellectuals. I feel sad for those scientist that bent to the hype and forgot the basic premise to scientific theory...that a theory is not a FACT.

For more interest FACTS link below takes you to a series of articles debunking the whole people are responsible for it all...

Answer 2

While your statistics are true, those cannot be debated. There are warming trends on planet Earth.

The argument lies in the emissions of carbon dioxide. Which is a well known and studied greenhouse gas

Very recent studies have shown, that the current carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere are at all time high levels. Now before you ask, yes they can study this by drilling ice that has been frozen for thousands of years. They find tiny little air bubbles and analyze its contents. And with that data they can construct what chemicals were prevalent in our atmosphere at the time that ice froze. They can even determine what the weather patterns of the time were, calculate what the average temperatures were, and can even calculate what effect it had on the environment of the time. So it is not a mute argument, there are many facts to support both sides of the debate.

I would suggest, before you totally discredit all science is doing to answer these questions, you study things like this.

Are we having an effect on our environment? yes

Are we heating up the Earth? possibly

Are we solely to blame for this? probably not

Personally I think it is a combination of the two. The being, the Earth's natural warming cycle combined with the amount of emissions throw into the atmosphere every minute of every day of every year.

Answer 3

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Around the turn of the 20th century, there was an argument that dumping sewerage and industrial waste into the waterways would pollute the environment. The naysayers of the time gave pretty much the same counter argument you hear today about global warming.
Nothing was done about river pollution until a few rivers erupted in flames from spontaneous combustion. By that time, the cost of the clean up operation was immense.
On a global scale, we are dumping 8 billion tons of carbon into the air each year. At some point in the future, that will effect the condition on earth. Why be reactive with this problem. Being proactive will save lots of money.
There is no point in waiting until the ice caps melt. It doesn't take a brainiac to figure out pollution is a bad thing. Why not convert to cleaner energy. How can you be against cleaner energy? What is the downside to you personally with cleaner energy? Why any normal person, who doesn't own an oil company, would be against clean energy is beyond me.

Answer 4

okay, a question addressed to everyone in the world other then nonconservatives....

I can explain that one right out of the environmental science textbook. The medieval warming period was an up cycle in the natural cycles of the earth, and when it ended, the Labrador current shifted. In case you don't know, the Labrador carries the cool water south, and replaces it with warm water from the Gulf stream. At least, it did until if shifted south when the little ice age began in the 1700's. when that current shifted, the Vikings there no longer had a warm climate, and the land became covered in ice, like it was for the longest time until we started heating it up again (not naturally)

Shifting currents can change local weather patterns.

And the greenhouse effect has existed for a long time- there's no denying that. But we have disrupted the natural cycle. as far back as we can measure, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has never risen above 300ppm, until very recently. (less then 100 years recent) And we can measure back for billions of years. And in that time, it never exceeded 300 ppm. the greenhouse carbon fluctuated in natural cycles, yes, but never exceeded 300ppm until very recently.

Answer 5

From 1976 until 1989 I analysed air for underground coal mines to detect build-ups of methane and the emergence of spontaneous combustion in coal. In a well ventilated mine, carbon dioxide levels are only marginally above those in atmospheric air. Within a few days of starting the job I found that I was getting inconsistent results for CO2 at low levels. The reason was that the literature value I had been using for atmospheric CO2 was out of date. According to the books which had been published in about 1968 the atmosphere had 300 parts per million (ppm) of CO2.

I did a complicated series of analyses and calculations and got an average of 320ppm over three or four days. Using this as a baseline removed the inconsistencies.

Some years later I repeated the exercise and got an even higher level, somewhere around 330ppm. I telephoned the atmospheric baseline monitoring station at Cape Grim in Tasmania and found that my measurement was correct.

By 1988 I measured 345ppm the same way. Recently I read that the average value around the world is over 360 ppm.

This is a 20% increase in atmospheric CO2 in rather less than forty years. I believe, though I have no personal experience of it, that the isotopic composition of the carbon in the atmosphere points directly to human activity creating the increase, since the isotopes are similar to those in coal and oil.

It is quite true that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas. it is also true that volcanoes, and lithification and metamorphosis of sedimentary rocks contribute a very large amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

I am personally unconvinced that present warming trends are linked directly to human activity or that human activity is the main cause. However the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is indisputable and we should proceed with caution. The thinning of the ice cap in Greenland is also indisputable. By the way I am Australian and don't give two hoots about Mr Gore or Mr. Bush, two sides of the same coin as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

Answer 6

Obviously the earth's climate has changed many times before, and as a result of many factors. But neither of these facts negate the evidence that humans are currently contributing to climate change! That's no longer an area of debate:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

President George Bush: "Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world."

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: “There's always, in history, been people that are back with their thinking in the Stone Age. . . . The science is in. We know the facts.”

Answer 7

There was a small scale ice age during the middle ages. The earth's climate is always changing. I'm glad that someone else pointed out that water vapor is the dominent greenhouse gas. I've been trying to tell people for years. Nobody listens.

Answer 8

question # 8. How do scientist comprehend that people arent protecting the temperature cooler? question # 9. what's the baseline length for climate variations? question # 10. how briskly could the earth be warming devoid of people in touch? the actuality is, NOONE knows..there isnt a single scientist that could grant a definitive answer. Any scientist that asserts to comprehend is purely proving that they are preaching for the environmentalists and for this reason can basically be biased.

Answer 9

You are completely right on global warming. Global warming does occur, but it is natural, as is it's after effect, global cooling.
The global warming crowd is a cult. They watch Al Gore and believe it when he says that arctic icecap is "melting" even though it is below zero temperature at the icecap, and current findings show it getting thicker.
This bunch will continue to try to scare the witless amongst us. They will do it for money, grants, and political power.

Answer 10

your answer is a theory just like all the rest... we have no actual evidence of the temperatures then and what proof do you have that they farmed there?