Do you think in 50 years(or earlier), there will be global warming?

Question

i don't really know so i just need your guys' opinions. thx

Answer 1

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST (Wall Street Journal Online)

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Answer 2

It took a little effort to locate Illulissat in Google Earth, and you're right, there's hills and a fjord, and more hilly terrain before part of the icecap appears---like at least 50 miles away. As I said in my answer to the referenced question, there's a lot of imprecision about the point of observation. However, it is still possible to "notice" that the sun has come up early. Let's say that you're a native of Illulissat, and you're in the habit of going to a coffee shop, and the front of it is in perpetual darkness until, say, Jan 13. But this year it's lit up on Jan 11. It's possible to notice those kinds of things fairly unambiguously that doesn't depend on subjective interpretation. After all, it's these kinds of observations that led ancient people to erect monuments to mark off astronomical events of the year. If there is really an solid icecap "horizon" responsible for determining when this event occurs for Ilulissat, and it's 50 miles away, then instead of about 30 feet of ice melted down being responsible for 2-days early appearance of the sun, there would have to be more in the order of 500 feet of ice melted down. A virtual collapse of the local icecap. While nothing concrete can really be said for this story without more details, I wouldn't discount natives of Ilulissat reporting an early sun. If they say it seems awfully early for the sun to appear, I would give them some credence, because, after all, they live there.

Answer 3

Sorry, but it's already happening and it's probably already too late. It kinda sucks but there it is.

Despite whatever the folks at Fox News are spinning this week... it's kind of like denying your an alcoholic while being hammered at the bar at 10AM, you can deny all you want but the facts speak otherwise.

Alot of people will say OH look it snowed in Florida last week or it's cold in Antarctica or something so global warming is all a big bunch of liberal/communist/socialist/ (fill in the blank) nonsense.

That's great, I'm happy that they're happy but they will point you to the one or two odd facts which support what they _want_ to believe , but forcibly ignore the facts that aren't pretty.

That ALL of the temperate glaciers across the entire planet are melting - EXCEPT for 3 of them, of 3200+ odd glaciers the conservatives must be right - since those 3 glaciers not melting out of the 3200 that are, means global warming is just a big hoax - or not.

Pretty much this is because there will always be people who say it isn't so bad or isn't happening at all, or we don't need to spend money to fix that...since it isn't a problem anyway.

But in 50-60 years (based on current usages) we run out of oil, in 50 or so years after that natural gas. coal won't run out for 300 years but you can't run a car or an airplane on coal so pretty much if you wait long enough, we'll run out of stuff to burn and then the global economy will more or less collapse due to environmental pressures.

Because unchecked use of fossil fuels will lead to some rather "unpleasant" circumstances. Like a few hundred million Asians who will need new places to live since glacial runoff water (used by over 50% of all of humanity) and food (grown with the water) will become scarce where it is now plentiful (India and the Chinese lowlands).

The western 1/2 to 2/3rds of the US will become a serious desert when the summer water supplies/river sources (the Eastern Rocky Mountain watershed) starts to really dry up. Just ask the farmers in Montana about "salt seep" and "water sharing rights" nowadays, and you will get a fight.

Australia is already pretty much already screwed and becoming a much drier place, with manditory water restrictions and rationing of water presently, with very common multi-year long "droughts", wildfires etc. It's kinda like Mad-Max its just that society, is coping so far, but cattle farmers or corn farmers could very easily be a permanently rare sight in Australia.

Personally - I don't like it but it just seems more like Human nature - (see Humans!)

The end of Oil (and most other things we take for granted) http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618239774

Humans! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1834532365017960527&q=genre%3Aanimation+humans%21&hl=en

Answer 4

That all depends on whether on not mankind is still around. if we are, and we are still pumping the air full of hydrocarbons, then of course man made global warming will continue.

No rational person who has looked at the objective evidence can possibly conclude that increases in global temperatures (about .2 C/year) and the increase in greenhouse gases are unrelated.

Religionists usually conclude that the increase in temperatures
are contrived by evil "secular humanists" and/or people who want to manipulate them for some reason or another. The fact is that global warming is not a hoax, its here, its real, and its not going to go away by claiming Al Gore made it up.

Answer 5

Definitely, corals are now growing further from the equator than ever seen before, and there have been more extreme weather events recently, like hurricane Katrina, that used to be once in 100 years, but now will be once in 20, and soon once in 10! Insurance companies are already planning for this. Don't buy any seaside land if you are young and intending to live there all your life!

Answer 6

Nope, Al Gore, inventor of the internet & man made global warming will be gone and this man made phenomenon will also be gone......

While many are asked to live "green" lifestyles, Al Gore goes through hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels with cars, toys, houses, planes, you name it. He doesn't even try to cut down even a little bit........ What a hypocrite!

Also, before you go to the bank with this whole man made Global warming know that the jury is still out about climate change and man's role if there is one, but one thing we do know for certain is that there are political agendas to promote socialistic politics. Even if man was partially responsible, if humans changed entirely, there would only be a slight difference of a degree or two in temperature change. I think we should get off fossil fuels because it makes us dependent upon unstable nations for our energy supply, not because of global warming.

Top scientists have refuted man's affect on the climate such as Astrophysicist Nir Shariv who stated, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming. Particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic-rays have on our atmosphere."

"The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate."

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature."

Oregon state climatologist, George Taylor said that "the global warming seen in the past century is caused largely by natural events, including cyclical climate patterns and solar fluctuations linked with cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover." Mr Taylor was recently fired by the Oregon governor for his "scientific" views.

I don't think there is a debate about whether global warming is occurring, but the idea that it is man made is a myth. Remember, the UN that came out with a recent report about climate change is a political entity that has done many things to prove it is not a credible, un-biased source. A recent example is the oil for food scandal that diverted millions of dollars to UN members and others. Also, even if there was man made climate change, China (the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter) and India are not going to embrace fossil fuel consumption.

Additionally, many scientists disagree about climate change and 17,000 signed a petition against the Kyoto treaty. Unfortunately, the sales focussed media who know little about this, spin it to suit their own opinions. So, its highly debatable whether humans are influencing global warming. Another thing to consider is that every 11,500 years, the earth goes through a major extinction with a global warming and cooling phase (ice age.) Paleontologists are able to track this through soil samples. We may actually be headed into an ice age because we are coming to the tail end of the current cycle. The problem is that the media and politicians get focussed on a piece of the puzzle and try to simplify this issue. Don't be fooled. There is probably nothing humans can do. Even if we could, there is no way you can control China who is becoming a major world polluter. Humans will need to adapt to climate change. Where I live there are small changes in our weather pattern, but nothing major. A lot of the media is hype to sell newspapers. The only caution is that some past climate changes have been more radical, swinging wildly from hot to cold. Others have brought on instant and severe cold conditions. I know the area that I live used to be buried in hundreds on feet of ice, but temperatures are mild today... Humans will just need to wait and see what mother nature brings and adapt as necessary.

Source(s):

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


Winter Blast Brings Snow To West LA, Malibu
CHP To Escort Motorists Through Icy Grapevine
POSTED: 9:43 am PST January 17, 2007

http://knbc.nbcweatherplus.com/weathernews/10773559/detail.html

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

Global warming 'just a natural cycle'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/18/nclimate118.xml

Imminent Global Cooling
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp

R.G Bromley (1979)and Kenneth J Hsu (1982) - Dramatic sea temperature changes in earlier extinctions
Norman D Newell - Sea level plunge before extinctions
Anthony Hallam University of Birmingham, UK
http://www.climatecentral.org/
http://www.iceagenow.com/

Answer 7

I think so because if we do invent cars that run on water or stuff, we will still create some pollution of some kind.

Answer 8

... its already here. all other countries are trying to stop it by reduceing CO and CO2, but US who produces the most don't even enter the international program. so i think all the ice will melt and we will all sink.

Answer 9

mabyee in 1000 years

Answer 10

it started already da polar caps are starting to melt