Will we ever sort out global warning?

Answer 1

Most other countries and most people have already sorted it out. The Kyoto Treaty to reduce greeenhouse gases has been ratified by all of the industiralized nations (178 have signed) EXCEPT 2 - the US and Australia.

If you examine publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, there is VERY little scientific controversy that the green house gases are responsible for global warming and yes, there is very little controversy in the scientific community that global warming is a disaster of enormous proportions. Then why is there controversy in the popular press? Because the press is controlled by wealthy interests that care more about making money than the eventual deaths many and the total disruption of life for the millions living in low-lying coastal regions. Because if you have wealth, you will be able to escape the effects of global warming in the short term. Then there's the influence of the oil industry. Richard S Lindzen who advises senators and some of the president's men and who has been "caught censoring scientists who assert that human activity is driving global warming" is on the oil company payroll. (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389313&page=16 )

To answer your question, I think many Americans are in denial and confused about this. Many of us are working to get people here to wake up and face the music, but, sadly, I fear it will be a case too little, too late.

So yeah, for the rest of the Americans that can't take the trouble to do a little reading and figure it out, you'll get it sorted out all right - when it's too late to do something about it.

NOTE: The preceding represents an editted version based on the statements of amancalledchuda below: My apologies.

=============

“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

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 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

We, as a people should be more responsible about pollution, BUT;
Global Warming, as defined by certain governments and their associated pet scientists is an incomplete fabrication. Incomplete because anybody (I did) can research the subject extensively and interpret the data any way they like; at best the data is ambiguous - it argues neither for nor against global warming. At worst it puts the lie to the whole thing.

Here are a few facts I discovered:
1. The Global Warming bandwagon only came into existence after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and only gathered momentum after the final break-up of the former Soviet Union (1994).

2. The main thing we hear about (that says global warming is happening) is the melting of the Greenland ice-cap. What we DON'T hear is that there is clear evidence - WITHIN THE CAP ITSELF - that the same thing has happened many times!

3. We also hear that global mean temperatures continue to rise. We DON'T hear that they have been doing so in leaps and bounds since about 1840. We also don't hear that, in some places (Albany, NY and West Point, NY to name 2), mean temperatures have actually DROPPED since the beginning of the 20th century.

One thing is certain:
The Earth has a VERY complex ecosystem and anybody who says they understand how and why it works is either a liar, insane or both.

For anybody interested enough, Michael Crichton came up with a very interesting theory about WHY the global warming phenomenon into existence, in his novel "State of Fear". And being Michael Crichton, he backs it all up with fully researchable, un-impeachable facts.

Answer 4

Not entirely as it has been happening since before machinery or any of us were ever thought of! The underwater cities are a big clue that global warming has been always there, sea levels have been rising for centuries since the ice age. Certainly all we do on earth will be speeding the process up a bit, especially the countries that aren't bothering to do anything about it, but I think it is a natural process that will happen anyway, no matter how 'green' we are.

Answer 5

We might be able to slow it if global greenhouse gas emissions are seriously reduced. At present they are increasing at an exponential rate and I expect the global average temperature to do the same.

With previous environmentally problems we have managed to find alternatives that enable economies to progress and life to carry on pretty much as normal, e.g. the Ozone hole will benefit from reduced CFC emissions, Acid rain benefits from reduced sulphur dioxide emissions.

But oil and gas are profound energy sources (imagine pushing a car up a hill) that are easy to transport and use. At present there is no fully developed 'quick fix' alternative, bio-fuels might give an option but really it takes millions of years and geological processes to concentrate such energy into a small volume. So we might have to work with a variety of different approaches - e.g. energy reduction, bio-fuels, increased efficiency, slower economic growth.

But his generally adds a complexity to most people's daily lives which they do not wish to accept (and life is complicated enough) and so they rebel against the science, the policy makers and the green movement.

So unless there is a rapid shift in the consciousness of society to put the environment first, particularly those with huge wealth and power, I remain doubtful of our global ability to deal with this issue before it's too late.

Answer 6

I do hope not! Well, assuming that by "sort out" you mean stop it.

Given that the climate of planet Earth has changed constantly throughout its history, suddenly stopping it happening now, would be the single most environmentally UNfriendly thing, any human generation has ever done.

Oh, it would be great for us humans, but don't kid yourself for one minute that it would be in any way "green".

The fact is, everybody needs to calm down a bit regarding climate change. Despite what you're hearing, it's really not going to be as bad as some people would like you to think it is.

Take 'ftm_poolshark' above. He states...

"there is very little controversy in the scientific community that global warming is a disaster of catastrophic proportions."

And that global warming will cause...

"the eventual deaths of millions of people."

This is simply nonsense, classic scaremongering to try and get the gullible public to jump onto the bandwagon. 'ftm_poolshark' should be ashamed of himself.

Have a look here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/6115644.stm This is a piece by Mike Hulme, a "consensus" scientist - i.e. he believes that global warming is happening. He says...

"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."

Remember that, as far as life is concerned, warmer is generally better. Far more people die during a cold snap, than during a heat wave, for example. Plants tend to flourish when it's warmer because the growing season is longer - and then animals that depend on those plants do better too. And the animals that depend on those animals... etc, etc. You get the idea.

Yes, in some areas of the world, people will be worse off. Of course they will, but there would be other people worse off if the climate got colder. So, since the climate is *always* changing, we can guarantee that, whatever happens, some people will always be worse off because of the change. The only way to prevent this is to stop climate change altogether. And as I've already said, doing *that* would be monumentally UNgreen!

Answer 7

It'll require a lot of effort on the part of the governments, especially America. Who don't support anti-global warming strategies because it's 'Uneconomical'. We should all take a leaf out of Sweden's books, their government is very environmentally friendly, they pour money into ecologically beneficial alternatives and solutions to pollution. In some of the Nordic countries, over 60% of their energy is from renewable sources (Wind & hydroelectic power). If all governments became less money-obsessed and more environmentally active, like sweden, they could impose laws on industry, and the public to help mitigate the effects of global warming.

Apologies for ranting, i just feel strongly about it. lol.

Answer 8

If by 'sort out' you mean will we figure out if it is real or not? Yes, When the ice caps are gone even the most thickheaded of the nay sayers will have to recognize it as a fact.

If by 'sort out' you mean stop it from happening, sadly no. If we doubled the Kyoto accord and passed every piece of legislation and reduced emissions by whatever pie in the sky number you would care to use. That only works until the population increase brings the emission and resource depletion back to where we started. Say you reduce car emissions for every single car on the globe by 50%. GREAT! Until the number of cars on the road is doubled. Square one.

As the number of people goes up exponentially, so do the waste, emissions and resource usages go up exponentially.

Answer 9

I look to undergo in concepts the Margaret Thatcher become pushing international Warming in an attempt to push nuclear because she were given a lot resistance to nuclear from the coal market. It purely is going to instruct that political forces as well as market must be from each and each section. if truth be told oil has a tendency to income on international warming scares because it harms coal, a minimum of interior the couple of minutes period. Too typically, market seems at couple of minutes period revenue because it really is what they ought to carry their hats on for will develop and promotion. besides, I digress. i'd ought to come lower back and word if all of us promises something convincing. i'm guessing they gained't. they have self belief because they have self belief. they have self belief because they have self belief others have self belief. something else of their evidence appears to be like derived from those 2 factors. note: properly I got here lower back and were given the similar old pap from the similar old suspects. Blue Flash truly believes he can see the replace that CO2 has wrought. if truth be told Greenland turned right into a lot more suitable liveable 1000 years in the past. people did not reason that. Going to Greenland and fretting over ice melting is like going to Kansas and fretting over corn starting to be. The earth has warmed usually interior the purely appropriate three hundred years, extremely the northern hemisphere. It warmed after the Nineteen 1970s till lately. Warming casues glaciers to recede. It promises purely about 0 evidence that CO2 brought about it. that is a pipe dream through alarmists and under no circumstances something more suitable.

Answer 10

i doubt it