Could/should we tackle global warming, or....?

Question

We have heard a lot about global warming recently (and global cooling some decades ago) and I would like to ask if it is worth it trying to tackle it, at least we have heard that there has been an ice age before (or is it after) the dinosaurs and then a meteor, which destroyed the dinosaurs world but here we are today, living as the dominant being of the world.

Could we overcome global warming or should we just leave nature to take its course and see how things work out in the end. Why bother about an uncertainty?

Don't mean to offend anyone, it is just a question!!

Thank you

Answer 1

Global warming is certainly real, but it is pure egotism to suppose that it is caused by living things. NASA has plenty of photos of the Martian polar ice caps shrinking, and they are not affected by Earth pollution! (It’s caused by long term variations in the Sun. That’s physical evidence, not statistics..)

Granted that we should not crap up the place where we are living, global warming is just the latest political effort to intimidate (control) the public into not polluting because the incentive of a clean world is not enough for the polluters. Algore failed in his bid to become President. What other way to achieve his goals than to make the guy that won seem like he doomed the human race…? Did you think it was just a coincidence that Global Warming and George W. have the same initials…? Funny, isn’t it! And that will only detract more and more from Bush’s prestige while enhancing Algore’s prestige.

Christopher Columbus was running short on supplies when he was exploring the Caribbean. When he asked the natives on one island for food and fresh water, they refused. His soldiers wanted to use force against them, but Columbus told them to wait.

A week later, Columbus asked the natives for food and water again, and told them that if they did not provide him with what he wanted, he’d make the Sun go away. The natives laughed him off.

The next day, there was a solar eclipse. The natives were terrified. They begged Columbus to put the sun back, and they would give him anything he wanted. He agreed, but warned them that if they tried anything funny, he would make the sun go away again, and this time, it would NEVER come back.

Do you see what Algore is doing…? The same thing as Columbus. Taking advantage of the natives ignorance. Capitalizing on a natural phenomenon he KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, to manipulate and control them through fear.

This way, if it happens in our lifetime, Gore can say, “If only they listened to me in time!” If it doesn’t happen in our lifetime, Gore will say “It’s because they listened to me in time!” Heads I win, tails you lose. He will be remembered in the history books, and Bush, who is doing the actual work, will be forgotten.

Gore’s a POLITICIAN…! Don’t fall for it.

Now, about the reality of global warming, it is happening, but it is due to the Sun and we can’t stop it. We don’t know yet how high the seas will rise, or how far inland we need to move our cities. I only hope we don’t move them five miles and then find that we need to move them another five miles, fifty years later, when moving them twenty miles would have been ideal.

But, we will need technology-- that means engines and trucks to move things. There will be a lot more ocean travel. That means ships, with engines, and that means supertankers to transport petroleum. There will be more agriculture, in lands that are not now currently arable. That means farm machinery and the fuel to run them. It is silly to think that if we just give up technology that we can go on living our comfortable lives and keep playing our video games. It is just self-delusion to think otherwise. Life is going to get less comfortable, and we need to use all the technology we have to keep it from getting even more uncomfortable.

14 Dec 06, 1342 hrs, GMT

Answer 2

Unfortunately just asking will offend some zealots, try not to sweat it.
Global warming is, for the most, part a natural phenomena caused by regular solar cycles of roughly 650 years. Major ice ages aside, a cooling of several degrees is expected during each cycle. The latest cooling period finished about 1850. 1826 was the coldest year on record - look up "Little Ice Age". There have been three cycles recorded historically since about 250 BC.
Global warming is certain enough and will continue for at least another 150 years. Not much we can do about that.
The contribution of greenhouse gasses to that warming effect is an other matter. I would like to say that it cannot hurt to slow the rate of emissions but some actions can be very harmfull. Industry is big on Carbon trading. Where this involves establishing large plantations of trees, there is a problem. The trees compete with food production by using up enormous amounts of water. In Dam catchments, they can dry up a cities water supply. The ratio is 10 000tonnes of water to one tonne of carbon while the tree is actively growing. After that the water is still used with no gain in carbon.
We are told that we must do something. That is not necessarily true. If we do something it must be the right thing, not just a good political catch-cry.

Answer 3

There is not any nation that's "tackling" international warming. Global warming is a average phenomenon and while it happens it supplies for terribly affluent lifeforms for the duration of the interval. All contemporary measurements exhibit that the planet hasn't elevated in traditional temperature for the final eleven years. It's feasible we are going into one other cooling interval, which is not so well for lifestyles, however nobody particularly is aware of for definite. A lot of incorrect information attempts accountable CO2 for warming, however that is going in opposition to found clinical knowledge. But if you are curious approximately international locations that emit much less CO2, they're most of the time deficient third global countries with ravenous plenty. Countries with top prosperity have a tendency to have so much much less air pollution. For illustration, the US has been ceaselessly lowering air pollution phases for the final 30 years. Not so with such a lot different international locations all over the world, peculiarly poorer international locations. So the strategy to preventing air pollution helps deficient international locations prosper.

Answer 4

Ok very simply I think one can see the thing in this way:

- it is mankind that is provoking global eating, not nature so please be centre in this question.

Well in order to make the explinations about the relation in global warming and mankind’s activities evident let me try to give a real scientific explanation:

The CO2 level is increasing this has been happening since the industrial revolution and in the last 100 years it has broken all limits of recorded history lets be aware that the recordings taken in the north pole includes several ice ages and so it includes complete cycles of earths temperature no doubt about it, it's a fact no one that has seen the numbers doubt it this is given in the film inconvenient truth and I know it for quite some time now. Maybe not in such detail but it's a fact. So this tells us what we want to now.

So how does CO2 affect global temperature? well CO2 is relatively small molecule and it let's throw all the UV and visible radiation even the near IR radiation but when one talks about radiation in the mid infrared it basically absorbs and diffuses it, and so the problem is that the radiation from the sun is UV visible and infrared but earth absorbs it in the surface so that it can be heated, in thermodynamics terms the sun the body with higher temperature gives energy to the body with less energy (earth) now normally the earth would emit back a huge percentage, (theoretically in a isolated system it would be all, but has we have seen earth temperature isn’t constant it is oscillating with a period equivalent to the time between the end of one ice age to the end of another) of this energy in form of a less energetic form of radiation the IR radiation now if one has a considerable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere this radiation won’t get out of the atmosphere and it will stay in the earth consequently earth will get warmer and warmer the it’s a process that takes its time but is inevitable no way around this one.

And so one does not need to wait to see if the earth is going to get warmer in the next years it’s a fact.

All the other factors will help the melting of the poles will expand the area of liquid water and it will be made more easy to absorb heat from the sun, the ozone layer will contribute so that UV radiation enter better in to the earth surface and the re making of oceanic currents due to the melting of the poles will resurface a real problem in terms of eat distribution around the planet inducing huge separations between the higher temperatures and the minimum ones so increasing the problems for animals with body temperatures between 36 and 37 degrees Celsius.

So answering your question it is obvious one needs to do something if one wants to keep the planet. Attention beside humankind problems all the life will have to be adapted and many species will die lets hope it stays enough for us to feed upon.

So lets be aware of some more things no way we are going to abdicate technology that's not the subject, and for the things I have explain no way this is a natural phenomena scientists have no interest in lying wake up just because a polititian has join them that does not mean scientist hadn't talk about it for decades and decades, this is not a conspiracy, the CO2 relation with the temperature is obvius for any person that studies science in a reasonable level and the fact that CO2 is increasing is also ruder obvius no doubt about it. It is not a natural phenomena if it is we are all screwed and one can not do nothing about it but how can you belive it so? Your lying to your selfs!

More:
If you do not want to belive the signs already ear don't but you are lying again. but do not doubt the CO2 it isn't possible to lye when you measure gases in the atmosphere, it's a measure repeated times and times over and over again by many people, some even republicans. Do not make this about politics it is a fact not a opinion it does not only concerns mankind but life it self in all shapes and sizes.

Now life is certanly not getting more confortable, no doubt but if we keep with fossil fuel based technology this will end sonner or later and one won't have nothing do then, suport our selfs in carbon but this will also end you have to bet in other resorses hydrogen has a energy transportation, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal energy wave energy, and be aware that this will also be harder and harder to get with global heating.

Measures like all gas stations will have to have hydrogen will be wonderfull, cheap solar pannels development, taxes incentives ... cheap hydrogen distribution.... nuclear plants development.
Wake up you won't be able to live this way forever. no matter how much you run it will be caught, unless you go to another planet. It is true naturally the earth would be eatng but not like this this is too much, it is ridiculus to think otherwise with the explanation I gave.
Last thing we are late there hasn't been an aplication of a alternative energies technologies in a medium scale and so now one is not sure what to do but the fact is there is no time for experiments it has to be apliable at a large scale ten years ago.

Answer 5

Yes we should try to fix the problem. The major problem is when the United States takes a lead and passes laws to effect a change the rest of the world, gives it lip service, and totally ignores the problem. I recently read about the loss of a species of dolphin, due to Chinese industrialization. The Chinese knew they were harming the dolphins twenty years ago, and could have taken steps to save them. They didn't care. That is how the world looks at this type of problem.

Answer 6

The problem is that there is no proof that there is global warming in the sense you mean. As far back as we have temparature records there has been a regular pattern of temperature highs and lows. I'll start pondering this question in fifteen or twenty years if the weather doesn't start evening back out as it always has.