Why should we cut emission gasses?

Question

Geographers define an ice age as a period in the Earths history when there are ice caps. Our current climate is an 'interglacial' period. This doesn't mean 'between ice ages'. It is used to describe the period within an ice age when the ice retreats because of warmer temperatures.
'Our' interglacial started 10,000 years ago, in what we think is the Fourth Ice Age. FOURTH!
An interglacial period ranges from 12,000 to 50,000 years.
The causes of the fluctuations are not well understood. Possible factors include the position that the land masses happen to be in, the composition of the atmosphere, changes in the planets orbit around the Sun and possibly even the Sun's own orbit around the galaxy.
The 'Little Ice Age' which began in 1500 and lasted for 300 years, saw the average temperature in northern Europe drop by 1 degree Centigrade. It also coincided with a period of extremely low sunspot activity. Who did the government blame then, when it eventually melted?
We are being conned.

Answer 1

Yup, I'm with you on this.

None of the evidence that I've seen suggests to me that we are facing any kind of crisis. The number one piece of evidence that supports this for me is the Medieval Warm Period. If it was up to 3°C warmer than it is now 800 years ago - and there were no problems at all - then why are we running around like headless chickens about global warming today?

And, obviously there is an awful lot of scaremongering and lying going on...

'fatsausage' - "Cut the emissions to save or help the Polar Bears." Except, of course, the polar bears are not in trouble... http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html

'Señor' - "the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere is at a catastrophic level (many many times higher than atmospheric CO2 in the past few hundred years)." Actually you are completely wrong. CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 292 parts per million in 1900 to around 365 ppm in 1998 - a rise of about one quarter in the last century. So, *not* "many many times higher"!

Also with 'Señor' - "Do yourself a favour and watch An Inconvenient Truth (2006, Al Gore) right now." A.I.T. is a Hollywood movie, not a science journal. I have yet to see it, but even in the trailer I've spotted lies; Al Gore says that Mount Kilimanjaro is losing its snow-cap due to global warming. It isn't. Satellite data shows that the temperature at the summit is hardly changing. No, Mount Kilimanjaro is losing its snow-cap because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Now, Al Gore *must* have known that, so he's lying to you!

'carmenl_87' - "2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998" But not beating the temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period when it was up to 3°C (count 'em) warmer than it is today.

'dink2006' - "Maybe we are mid ice age and are having a natural increase in temps around the world. But can we take the chance." What "chance"? The evidence suggests that we will be net better off if the temperature rises. The unusual hot weather in mainland Europe killed 3,000 elderly Frenchmen a couple of years ago. The most recent cold snap in the UK killed 25,000 people.

Yes, there will be some who will be worse off, but the only way to prevent that would be to stop the climate changing *at all*. And since the climate of planet Earth has been changing constantly for its entire history, suddenly stopping that natural change now would be the most UNgreen thing anyone has ever done! Oh, it would be great for us humans, but don't kid yourself that it would be, in any way, 'green' or environmentally friendly!

The truth is; the *fact* of global warming does not tell us its *cause*.Though CO2 and other greenhouse gases are likely to be a contributing factor, they are not likely to be the only factor, and may not even be the main one. "Climate change" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate change catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from the natural 'noise'. Yes, planet Earth is currently warming (slightly), but there is no consensus whether, or to what degree, human activities are causing "the problem", or even whether there is a problem.

Finally, one of the UK's leading "consensus" scientists had this to say last November...

"Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.

It seems that mere "climate change" was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be "catastrophic" to be worthy of attention.

The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid" - has altered the public discourse around climate change.

This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.

It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm)

In other words; don't believe the hype!

Answer 2

Given the age of the planet there must have been more than 4 ice ages.You point to some factors that could influence temperatures,however can you discount CO2 as to effecting the
increase in temperatures.What is more concerning as to the so called "greenhouse effect" is if sea temperatures rise methane will be released from sea bed.Methane is 60 times more effective as a so called greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
As you will know methane is formed by rotting vegetation etc .a
lot of this swept down rivers whose surrounding areas have been
ravaged by loggers &think of all the effluent we pump into the seas.Maybe we are mid ice age and are having a natural increase in temps around the world.But can we take the chance.
I think not ,we should do all we can to look after the environment,
not just from a possible warming effect but for the health of the
planet itself and the health of its inhabitants.

Answer 3

Met office News: 2007 - forecast to be the warmest year yet (global data started in 1850):

2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.

Each January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, issues a forecast of the global surface temperature for the coming year. The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as solar effects, El Niño, greenhouse gases concentrations and other multi-decadal influences. Over the previous seven years, the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06 °C.

Met Office global forecast for 2007

Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C;
There is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the current warmest year (1998 was +0.52 °C above the long-term 1961-1990 average)

More ...
GHG in the atmosphere is the highest in 650 000 years

If this theoric interglaciar period lasts 12000 years, we passed the midway of the interglaciar age 6000 years then temperatures should be decreasing. But, hmmm, they are increasing. Maybe it is longer, maybe not. What we know for sure is that earth is already above the range of 1 grade, and going up.

Another question: will humanking survive until next iceage? maybe it depends on humankind, does that "maybe" deserves our effort?

My answer:
No serious scientist predicts decrease of temperatures. They just offer theories and posibilities. Many scientists predicts increse based on theries.
And based on one fact: temperature rises, and rises and rises.

Of course, I respect people who believe that God, or Sun, or aliens will come and save humankind.

Answer 4

Why should we cut emission gasses? Because, if you have not noticed, the level of CO2 present in the atmosphere is at a catastrophic level (many many times higher than atmospheric CO2 in the past few hundred years). This is DIRECTLY attributable to our modern industrialised world pumping so much garbage into the air.

Answer 5

I guess our planet will do what it will do, and we are too little and powerless to stop it. However, I also think that what we do and the way we live does have an effect and by trying to be as kind as possible to the earth we can let it do what ever it will naturally, not forcebly because of the mess we are making through emissions.

Answer 6

because the greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere and is causing temperature to increase and violent storms like hurricane's to happen more often we are cutting emissions to reduce green houses gases which will reduce the amount of violent storms we get in the world

Answer 7

Cut the emissions to save or help the Polar Bears.

Answer 8

I blame the cows.