which do you really think causes global warming more? the people or nature itself?

Question

it's for my thesis...

Answer 1

Nature's been around for a long time. There have been alternating ice-ages and warmer periods. The global warming we are experiencing now is predicted to exceed anything we have seen in the last 3.5 million years by the year 2080. I come to this conclusion based on temperature predictions (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Climate_models ), wikipedia temperature graph for 5 million years (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png ) and CO2 vs temperature correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png ).

From a NASA publication: "most leading researchers and organizations
purport that the average surface temperature of
the Earth will increase along with increasing emissions. According
to the IPCC, the surface temperature could rise by
between 1.4°C and 5.8°C by the end of the century. Scientists
at Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, NASA’s
division spearheading
climate modeling efforts,
report that we should expect
between 0.5°C and
1°C over the next fifty
years.
At first glance, these
numbers probably do not
seem threatening. After
all, temperatures typically
change a few degrees
whenever a storm
front moves through.
Such temperature
changes, however, represent
day-to-day regional
fluctuations. When
surface temperatures are
averaged over the entire
globe for extended periods
of time, it turns out
that the average is remarkably
stable. Rarely
in the Earth’s history has
the average surface temperature
changed as dramatically
as the changes
that scientists are predicting
for the next century" ( http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf )

The concensus in the scientific community is that it us. I read this in CapNemo's first link, but he changed the link, so it's going to take me a while to find it again.
=================

“CapNemo” likes to go to all the global warming questions and paste in a statement pooh-poohing the threat. His statement is misleading and incorrect.

He says it’s only increased by 1 degree (F) in 125 years. This is a misleading number, because it is a global average: land and sea. We don’t live in the middle of the ocean and that’s not where the polar ice caps are melting. The temperature change over land surfaces has been twice that, and most of it in the last 40 years.

He says, “The average temperature in Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero.” If you go to his source, it says, “Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the interior in winter and reach a maximum of between +5 °C and +15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near the coast in summer.” OK, now the observation that the caps are melting makes more sense. It melts at the coast, in the summer, DUH! (Note by the way that his average number (-109) is only 3 degrees lower than one of the minimum numbers. I wonder, what kind of math did he learn?)

Then he says, “Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING”. All what hype? I was around then. I don’t remember any hype. And if you go to his source, it says, “This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting … The theory never had strong scientific support”. He tries to mislead us, by implying that a temporary flurry pf press reporting is comparable to what we are seeing now and that some hype without scientific basis is somehow similar to a consensus within the scientific community about global warming.

The truth is that those 2 degrees are HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. Scientists are predicting a temp 4 to 8 degree (F) increase over the next 75 years. “This may not sound like a great deal, but just a fraction of a degree can have huge implications on the climate, with very noticeable consequences." (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/5_predicting.html ). Yes, scientists predict, that's their job. They've gone to school years more than we have and spent their lives studying this stuff. This representrs humanity’s BEST GUESS at where this is all going. Of course, you can believe it snows in hell, or any other stupid thing you want. No one can stop you from believing what you'd rather hear, than what is the most probable outcome.

The link between CO2 and global warming is undisputed at this time. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 50% over the last 115 years (250 to 381 ppm, http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). In the last 30 years, it increased at a rate 30 times faster than at any period during the last 800,000 years. In other words, this change is totally unprecedented. (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). What else is totally unprecedented about the last 115 years? Industrialization and the population explosion. Duh. This is not rocket science; it is simple arithmetic!

"If Bert Drake is right, the good news is that, within the foreseeable future, Maine residents will be able to stop banking their foundations and to store their down parkas and snow blowers in the barn permanently. The bad news is that a lot of those barns will be underwater" (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). Yes, this is opinion. Who is Bert Drake? He's an SERC researcher who's been studying this for 17 years. If we aren’t going to believe our scientists, who then shall we believe??? Oh, I know. Let's believe CapNemo!!!

If global warming wasn't a real threat, why have 178 nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions? Why are the US and Australia the only two holdouts among the industrialized nations? (http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol_2.htm )

CapNemo’s statement reminds me about the frog in the pot on the stove that doesn’t move as the water gradually gets hotter and hotter. From this seemingly insignificant 2 degree change, we’ve already seen enormous consequences. (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/) How much hotter does it have to get for some people to wake up and face the music? And in the meantime, while you’re pondering all of this, be sure to check the dates on people’s references. Things are changing so rapidly that older information is no longer useful.

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

Answer 2

I think it's a natural thing. Actually the temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in the Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will.

Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there.

Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well.

I hope that helps...

Answer 3

In the Arctic, there was a photo taken. an Arctic explorer was standing beside a big natural hole in the ice and a river of clear water was rushing down into the hole, making a small lake underneath the ice field lifting the entire ice fields and moving the ice to the ocean. The ice around the hole was black from pollution and this was in the arctic. The black pollution absorbs the sunlight and warms the area turning the ice to water and rivers of water rush away. This is definitely caused by pollution from the nations. When the ice is gone the earth will be hotter.
There will be dryness on the continents and we may lose the grasslands to grass fires. Most of the trees may be destroyed as well. However each tree produces 100 gallons of water into the air each day. So the trees will provide some survival.
If we were smart we would start filling water tanks with the water runnoff in the arctic.
So the answer. Start praying in Jesus name, go to church on sunday.

Answer 4

You might hate my answer...but I have a really different take on this matter. Personally I don't understand why people feel this inexorable need to distinguish themselves from nature. We evolved, like every other life-form on this planet. What we do, is the result of nature. I.e. our inventions, our lives they are the product of nature - not some independent identity.

Arguably we have power, but really, we're not that big of a deal! If we screw up the planet and kill ourselves - it will recover in a few hundred thousand years. It's happened before, it will happen again. We have had several periods of life, due to mass extinction. Sharks once evolved so much that they practically wiped out most sea life. In the end, food ran out, they died off - a balance was found. Hell, even if the Earth can't recover, it will just become an orbiting rock, like many, many others in the galaxy (let alone the universe). Nature has created life that had huge negative impacts on the environment - it's evolution, it happens. We're just one of them. It's not even negative - it's just how life works.

So my argument is that global warming is a result of nature any way you see it. We freak out so much because we are trying to take care of our posterity - a biological need - and we are supremely arrogant and consider ourselves masters/peers/independent from nature. Fact is though, it's all nature's doing!

Answer 5

not one of the "nature" theories postpone to the evidence. For nature to reason warming, there might want to should be some organic adjustments to describe it. previous climate adjustments were very sluggish and likely pertaining to to the orbit of the earth, the Milankovitch cycles. yet the position we are now should be causing very sluggish cooling, ensuing in an ice age in 23,000 years. instead we've very quick warming over the past one hundred years. We do recognize of alternative organic factors that regulate the earth's climate over years or a lengthy time period: the solar's irradiance and the currents contained in the Pacific ocean (l. a. Nina or El Nino). We also recognize there have been sessions contained in the previous of spectacular volcanic pastime that convey about cooling. yet there has no longer been adjustments in those factors that would want to describe the change in warm temperature. We do recognize CO2 had greenhouse features. all of us recognize that the quantity of CO2 in our air and oceans has higher dramatically contained in the previous one hundred years. all of us recognize that the recent CO2 comes from fossil fuels via isotopes. the upward push in CO2 is the in user-friendly words change that has been chanced on than can clarify the very very quick warming that we've considered contained in the previous century -- warming that's about 3 cases the speed ever widely used on earth.

Answer 6

People in jet planes. Jet fuel produces more CO2 to pollute the upper atmosphere than any other source except the occasional volcano. Burning fuels on the earths surface causes no build up in CO2 because the plants take it up instantly.

Answer 7

Definitely due to us who don't care for the nature.All the people sitting in air conditioned rooms, using vehicles to go roaming,cutting off trees for there heating equipments,using non recycled items.All should think first if there is any alternative ways to do and is it useful at this time.Like some use Ac's in winter also.

Answer 8

If you look at Earths past I think it's mostly Nature, but I think people do contribute . I just don't think we have the ability to effect our climate as much as some people believe.

Answer 9

people definetly casue it if people thought of a way to turn pollution into energy ( a sort of co2 engine) we would be sorted =)

Answer 10

people .,of course