Global Warming - Chicken Little Syndrome, Natural Occurring Warming Cycle?

Question

I am getting tired of turning on the TV or reading the chicken littles of the world spouting off about Global Warming. Is the globe actually warming?Yes thats a fact, is it due to the burning of fossile fuels?Unknown. I believe since the ending of the ice age the globe has been warming and the effects have been seen since. Could this be a cycle or natural occuring phenomena? I guess it is a moot point as it is a fact the globe is warming. What do we do about it? I have read that there are people asking that 75 billion per year is spent to solve this problem. I submit that this is a bad use of $75 billion as the experts would admit this money will do NOTHING to stop, slow down, or maginally improve the situation. But 75 billion per could eliminate all world hunger, provide medical care to most who need it and you could educate the world. We can make a real difference now in the world in lieu of wasting money on an issue that cannot be fixed in this manner. What are you thoughs?

You that chastize me for not knowing the facts, can say what you want, and I know each one of you truely understand the issue no better than I. I suggest, submit, understand that you Joe consumer often do not make day to day decisions in the best interest of our plant but for your own good.
This issue will not be resolved by North Americans only, how do you get other
countries to get on board?

I also know that there are real sceintists that are close to this topic who agree that spending money to fix the problem is not the solution, it's stopping future proliferation of the existing condition.

I agree that the situation appears to be increasing at an unnatural rate, but you would have to admit not enviromental condition we face is due to global warming.

I should mention that I posted this for a reactive response and that I personally feel that there is no question there is a problem. I know this for a fact - Ninety-seven percent of the energy demand of the industrial world is met today by burning fossil fuels. Even if the industrialized world were to decide to shift to other energy sources as rapidly as possible, the annual consumption of fossil fuels would double before the shift was complete. Without such a shift, a peak annual rate ten or even twenty times today's C02 rate may occur before fuel reserves, especially coal reserves, are exhausted. Thus a large additional increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely in the next few decades. I just do want money to go to a problem that cannot be fixed, it can only be prevented from further growth. We need to have a major shift in the way we live and as such until peoples are will to what it takes to stop the consumption fossel fuels..

Answer 1

use the money to adapt to the new climate reality instead. It's no good trying to stop a speeding train. Right now it's time to think of what we will have to do to adapt once the train reaches the station.

Rethink agricultural practices, coastal settlement patterns, water conservaton strategies, etc.

Answer 2

I'm certainly not an expert but I do try to keep up with new information on this issue. So here's my laymans term answer as I understand it: According to this program I saw on the history channel, they had some evidence that PART of global warming is due to a natural cycle. However, they said on this program that humans can take part of the blame and certainly are contributing, but some of it has to do with the sun. As you probably know, the sun rotates as it spins. Certain areas of the sun have more solar flares. The sun is rotating to the point where it is approaching the area where solar flares are really bad and this side of the sun is directly facing the earth. This section of the sun has not been exposed to the earth for over a hundred years. The last time this occured back in the late 1800s, you'll read about the hard winters, floods and droughts that made history. These solar flares can actually reach into our atmosphere and cause warming of gases, or global warming which effects our weather. Again, humans ARE NOT off the hook, but they are not totally to blame. Can they help by cutting back on emissions? Most certainly. Great question!

Answer 3

I'm sorry that you're getting tired of the "chicken littles [...] spouting off about Global Warming" but I would venture to suggest that if we were doing more to tackle the problem, they might bother you less often.

The first thing to do is to understand the issue.
Answering a question such as: "[Is Global Warming] due to the burning of fossil fuels?" with "Unknown" apart from being factually incorrect tells me that we need to spend more time educating people about the issue.

Additionally, when you say: "I believe..." blah blah blah, that's a red flag telling me your opinion is not based on fact. We need more understanding of the science and less reliance on people's beliefs.

I would encourage any Global Warming skeptic to study the work that's been done on the subject. Go and watch an Inconvenient Truth. Some people don't care much for Al Gore but the movie is a very clear and very accessible analysis of the subject.

I would also encourage people to read some good online resources such as the RealClimate blog (see sources below). These guys are real climate scientists discussing the real issues. While they spend a lot of time commenting on scientific papers they also have fun from time to time debunking the "deniers" and their talking points.

Finally, I don't know where you read the USD 75bn per year figure or what that's based on (is it just for the US or the planet as a whole?!) but what's certain is that this is an accelerating problem so dollars spent now will certainly be more beneficial than dollars spent later.

Spending USD 75 billion per year on education is an admirable cause but not if it's at the expense of the planet we're living on. There are opportunities, of course, to make cuts in other areas. The US, for example, is currently spending USD 6,300 per second in Iraq. I realise that's another can of worms we don't want to get into here but I'm just saying there are policy choices to be made. Fighting world hunger and poverty are good ones. Ignoring Global Warming and fighting unnecessary wars are not.

Answer 4

By all means watch Gores Liberal propaganda masterpiece (he must have reincarnated Goebbels to produce that one) then log on to
Read it ALL, it should take several weeks (something wrong with that?) you will then have the real story. After you know the real climate change story, and the fact that man can in no way, by any immediate or long term action reverse current climate change trends, you may be able to answer any questions people might have about Gores version of "Global Warming" and his solutions, which would plunge the world into economic chaos, starvation, and civil unrest..... the stuff socialist liberals thrive on. Now, here are the rules, no matter how (liberally) you spread peanut butter and jelly on it… anything that burns creates Co2, including forests, lava flows, volcanic pyroclastics, city dumps, apartment houses, wheat fields… and fossil fuels. Adding to that information the incontrovertible fact that this planets basic ecology is in a constant state of o2/Co2 exchange which creates a daily addition of Co2 to the atmosphere based totally on natural plant photosynthesis and natural decomposition of organic vegetation…. I (eye) defy ANY reasonable (and rational) man of science to show a viable discrimination between these naturally occurring Co2 increases to indicate man is any way MORE to blame than the many facets of mother nature. While looking out the window (do it NOW, today) at the freezing rain build up on your Mustang Fastback... ask again, how does heat cause ice ???

Answer 5

First of all, we have a HUGE impact with all the CO2 we release into the air, the amount of increase is not natural. Yes we have had warming and cooling occur naturally, as well as ice ages, however what is happening now is at a rapid UNnatural rate. There is plenty we can do to prevent it from getting even worse. Albeit it is pretty late in the game, all that we have released already will have lasting effect for years to come. That's why it's so important we do something about it now. We do need to think about where all the people on the coasts will go, and how to get water to people in drought. We also need to pour money into the Space exploration programs, because we will probably ruin this planet in the next couple hundred years or so because, lets face it, America thinks she's the exeption to the rule, we are indulgent and greedy, and resistant to self control, and I doubt we will actually get it together enough to make a difference. Dispite my lack of faith, I still have hope if that makes any sense, that we will take of those blinders people like you are wearing, wake up, and DO SOMETHING!

Answer 6

Where is the CO2 I cant measure it . it is in the 1 & 2 parts per million. If the CO2 is not there neither is global warming and the plants have done a good job.

Answer 7

The warming and cooling of the globe without human interference works on a cyclic system. There are three cycles, one every 21 thousand years, one every 41 thousand and one every 100 thousand years. Using the data from chemical composition of dated sediment layers it is possible to build up a picture of how this cycling affected global climate(se milankovitch cycling on wikipedia).

At the moment we are in the warming phase of the 21 thousand year cycle but the warming is occurring at a faster rate thyan it should be. It is a proven fact that CO2 contributes to an effect known as the greenhouse effect, which results in a net rise in global temperatures. The area of debate here is whether the temperature change will be significant enough to cause us any problems. There are even some people who argue that a change in climate will have benefits. Certainly, plants may grow faster(they rely on CO2 and warmth for growth). It would be sensible to take precautions and try to slow down this proverbial speeding train until we know exactly where we're going to end up. Also, it wouldn't hurt to work on technology to deal with potential climate change and also to replace fossil fuels when they inevitably run out.

The investment you speak of may seem like a waste of money, but the majority of it will be in increasing efficiency of energy production, recycling and renewable energy, all of which will save more money in the long run. Lets not forget also that the money will be spread over a huge number of investors AND that the caused of solving potential problems is only going to increase the longer we take to find a solution...

Answer 8

Keywords in your text:

I am getting tired
Unknown
I believe
I guess
I submit

You seem pretty vague and baseless. I suggest you study the issue in depth instead of jumping to cushy conclusions which exonerate you from doing anything (suspicious).

Answer 9

Agree wholeheartedly.

Most scientifically educated people adress global warming this way, however that doesn't make headlines. A comparative handful of scientifically educated people scream their heads off about how we're gonna die. This makes headlines, masses believe headlines, you know the rest of the story