Global Warming... Will the effect be reduced in the near future?

Answer 1

In contrast with human-created DDT, CO2, a "greenhouse gas" has been part of the earth's atmosphere as long as the earth has existed. About 450 million years ago, the earth's atmospheric CO2 level was about 2,000 percent higher than it is today, at the same time the earth's atmosphere was about the same temperature as today.

In trying to control the atmosphere's CO2 levels, such as under the Kyoto Protocol Treaty, alarmists would likely inflict a human death toll comparable to the malaria epidemic, if the professional and amateur CO2-worriers have their way. Trying to control CO2 levels would be much more harmful to human health than any possible benefit.

In a new book, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007) S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery report recent scientific discoveries about the earth's climate. Dr. Singer is a Ph.D. climate physicist, founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Science at the University of Miami, and first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service. Avery is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, a former senior analyst in the U.S. Department of State, and an expert on agriculture and the environment policy.

The authors alternate chapters evaluating scientific evidence and political manipulations with six "baseless fear" chapters addressing false tales about changes in sea level, species extinction, drought, storms, global cooling, and human deaths.

One of the new and fascinating observations is that CO2 changes follow rather than precede climate fluctuations. As Dr. Singer puts it, "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming." CO2 is innocent.

Several different solar cycles overlap and reinforce each other about every 1,500 years, in addition to multiple other cycles. Worldwide climates changed up to several degrees Celsius over each of these 1,500-year cycles.

Over the last million years, each major climate cycle has lasted about 100,000 years. Ice ages lasting about 90,000 years have alternated with 10,000 years long "interglacial warm periods." Our current interglacial warmth started about 12,000 years ago.

Temperatures during the ice ages were 7 degrees to 12 degrees Celsius lower than today, a much wider swing lasting much longer than the 1,500-year cycle.
As Dr. Singer says, "The climate event that deserves real concern is the next big ice age. That is inevitably approaching, though it may still be thousands of years away. When it comes, temperatures may plummet 15 degree Celsius, with the high latitudes getting up to 40 degrees colder."

So why does the CO2 controversy continue? Perhaps French President Jacques Chirac gave the game away in 2000 when he said that the Kyoto Protocol Treaty represents "the first component of an authentic global governance."

We suspect that many politicians and others are jumping on this bandwagon to enhance their personal power, prestige, and pay.

Call it the global-political-industrial-media complex, if you want.

So, what is best for the health and well-being of humanity? Not only is global warming not a threat, it's likely to be a boon to mankind, as it was in the 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. medieval warming and in the 200 B.C. to 600 A.D. Roman warming. Current political moves internationally, nationally and even in the city of Seattle and other localities to control CO2 only benefit those few on the payroll or on power trips.\

Once again global warming not a threat................

Answer 2

Not by anything that mankind can do, no.

Despite what an awful lot of people think, there is actually *no* conclusive proof that the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are having any effect on global temperature at all. Most people will refuse to believe that statement, because they've heard it so many times that the believe it to be true, but they are believing it blindly. As I've said, it is *not* a proven fact.

As has been mentioned above, analysis of air bubbles in ice core samples demonstrate that actually increases in CO2 in the atmosphere *follow* rises in temperature, not the other way around.

It is also entirely possible that all of the observed rise in global temperature could have been caused by the sun.

The big problem with the global warming debate is the amount miss-information and downright lies that are getting told. For example, a couple of people on this question suggested that what we need is to increase the number of trees threefold. But trees already cover approximately a third of the land area of the Earth, so what they are proposing would cover almost the *entire* land area of planet Earth in trees. Not really a great idea, as I'm sure you'd agree!

And even people who should know what they're talking about are lying/getting it wrong, such as the UN and Al Gore.

Oh, and not everyone who says that global warming is not being caused by burning oil and gas are in the pay of the oil and gas companies. Just take a look at my source, for example.

Overall, I believe that a lot more study needs to be done before we decide to pay out billions of pounds trying to fix the problem. Or we might just discover that we made a huge mistake and end up plunging ourselves into a sudden ice-age (how does living under a mile thick sheet of ice grab you?)

Answer 3

Global warming is not something you believe in or you don't believe in. The facts are that we do pollute...and this HAS an impact on the environment...and the americans are the worst polluters. (even though they like to point the finger at China).
How can anyone even slightly educated think that our actions could have no effect. We see it every day, with species dying, with forests being destroyed, with glaciers disappearing, with cities getting larger and larger and dumps getting bigger and bigger. The only way to reduce the effects is to change the way we do things....won't happen! Some people make too much money out of this.

Answer 4

the significant food source of polar bears is seal. If the seals are literally not swimming lower than ice, because of melting, and taking a breather by ice holes, then the undergo has inadequate swimming speed to seize them in open water. No ice flows potential no resting seals, also. even as the seal pups are born, might want to be the really time for the bears to feed, yet many times the seals will breed on beaches faraway from the significant searching grounds of the undergo. The eventual results of all it truly is for the bears to go back inland to the cities, and it truly is prevented by using armed police and guards. sounds like yet another challenge for a synthetic undergo global. God forbid!!

Answer 5

Probably not, but no one knows for sure. We really do not have any understanding of normal climate cycles, so as far as we know it could turn around tomorrow. One thing we do know is that anything we can do is at best a drop in the ocean. One study showed that to halt projected future warming we would need to reduce worldwide cabon monixide emmissions by 50% (thats right, cut it in half).

Answer 6

Are we really sure that there IS global warming out there? It is only in the last hundred years or so that we have kept climatic records.

Who is to say that this is a cycle that the world goes through once every millennia?

On the other hand, I do believe that we, as the human race, are not helping the matter. The process may not have been so apparent in previous years, but with the way we use our fossil fuel, discard rubbish and generally not look after our surroundings

(and yes you Yanks have a lot to do with it as well, get your head out of the sand!!!)

has contributed in the rapid onslaught of so called 'global warming'.

Don't forget to blame the cows as well, their farts are not very eco-friendly.

Answer 7

No, it will not. Air has more and more proportion of GHG every year.
i know some people will vote negative to me, who cares?
the problem is not what you vote guys, the problem is that air has more and more proportion of GHG every year, it is a fact. The proportion is the highest in the last 650.000 years, that s a fact.

some of you tell that is is a natural fact and we cannt do anything.
flows in egypt were a natural fact, but they invented channels, snow and rain is a natural fact and we built roofs, cold is a natural fact and we have heating systems, sickness is a natural fact and we bring our beloved ones to hospitals if we have one posibility among one million for recovery (or do you let them die because death is a natural fact?)

oil lobby is very powerfull in your country, that s all,
you are not guilty

it is weird to see how they fight to convince people for doing nothing, why do you mind if the rest of the world fight against global warming?

why don t you want that we have more trees and less pollution? do you lose business? then sorry and happy new year

i dont know if france wanted a global government and isolate USA as one conspiracy theoric guy told here, but, if that is true, you guys are helping france a lot on that goal

and for your information, friend from texas, europe must reduce pollution more than USA in the kyoto protocol, although USA is the bigger polluter (25% of total emissions of CO2 and other GHG)

Answer 8

Global warming is not in question, the temperature rise is measurable and so is the sea level increase. There is some debate about how much, if any, is due to human activity - but to assume you can nearly double the concentration of a gas in the atmosphere with no impact is pretty optimistic.
And note that nearly all those who argue that oil and gas burning aren't responsible just happen to be paid by people who sell oil and gas. Not wishing to be cynical or anything.

The general trend in temperatures predicted from Milankovich Cycles is actually downward, so we appear to be rising against a falling baseline.

To answer your question, it is never easy to predict such things; Nature has a way of creating buffer responses to sharp changes in condition - for example the retreat of ice and defrosting of large areas could cause a surge in plant growth at higher altitudes and latitudes, sucking up carbon dioxide. But these responses are often rapid in geological terms only; in our lifetimes it may be too late.

Answer 9

Has anyone considered we stop building more roads and just improve the old ones? How about we stop turning the forests and farmland into megamall parking lots. Try planting trees in neighbor hoods and at those big parking lots that have no shade.
They will clean the air and cool down the hot parking lots.

Answer 10

No. It will get worse.

Global warming could be reduced by international co-operation to increase carbon capture by trebling the amount of the world's surface covered by trees. Anything else is simply a futile gesture. For as long as the world's largest consumer economy is controlled by morons, who believe in the rapture but not in global warming, there's no hope of achieving anything.

Eventually, nature will come to the rescue. Most of the human race will die out because they won't be able to adapt to their changing environment. The land will revert to forest and the world will cool down.