Global Warming?

Question

How many of you have seen an Inconvenient Truth? I saw it and it made me wanna change everything. My parents saw it and they thought he was just making it all up. How do you guys feel on the issue of global warming? What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

go to the countries on the equator ,check what has happened in history
and listen to what is going on in the many disaster areas on this planet ,(and therer are more than ever each year )

i send everybody who cares or who wants to know or who does not believe ,this mesage

some home truths

ecologists and scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.

: i have seen lands that have been turned from jungle into desserts by people in a matter of a couple of years ,because of the slash and burn method used by settlers and expanding agriculture,and i have seen rivers dry up because of deforrestation in many places in Africa and Mexico ,

i live now by the side of a river in Mexico where,in 30 years 5 species of fish have become exstinct .
and part of the year the river is dry this is for longer every year because of over use of water by agriculture and as a result of deforrestation.

there are natural cycles in the planets life
but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification


in recent times thousands of people have died because of exessive heat,usually old people.in India ,Mexico and France,
deforestation causing desertification,the desert conditions causing very cold nights and scorching hot days

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,the globe where they were got to hot for them .
and instead of producing food they are now needing it from some where else,and they will drastically effect the world food prices when they start buying water in the form of grains ,at any cost destabalising governments, in some countries ,could be the result

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,

as far as the food production is concerned, Global warming or some of its effects are serious,rising seas result in landloss

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

more landloss because of desertification every year,we have less areble land to produce food ,for an extra 70 million people ,

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.

Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.

SOLUTIONS
if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to reverse the destructive processes

reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.

the capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.

the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia

Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.

the protection of existing forrests.

stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.

education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´populaion

Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.

more environmental or land ,design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks

,more dams.regulations and control for public behaviour

alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine

recicling wastes,limit water use



Source(s) Lester E Brown is the director and founder of the global institute of Environment in the United states .he has compiled a report based on all the satalite information available from NASA,and all the information that has
come from Universities and American embassies WORLD WIDE ,
his little book--a planet under stress , Plan B has been trans lated into 50 languages and won the best book award in 2003.

Source(s):

i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico

Answer 2

I've also seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and that is an interesting report, too... More so if you were around when we had the big Y2k bug scare, both sides make a good point.

I think those of us who can afford it should make the changes, even if we're wrong and there is nothing can be done, at least we're moving in the right direction.

Because global warming or not, energy conservation keeps the price of petrol down and hopefully squeezes out a little more time before we run out, because petrol will not be around forever and we've been suffering a rather acute shortage and it would be good to find and start using alternate sources of energy.

What I think is wrong is to expect third world developing countries to follow in the exact footsteps, when by requiring the use of say solar power would in effect be denying them all electricity, more so because it's not feasible but they simply can't afford to switch when there are still a many places on earth who barely have generator power.

But the leaders, such as the US and China, Australia, most of Europe, Japan and other greatly advanced nations most certainly have it in them to lead the way, and I think this is a good thing and we should do that.

Answer 3

I thought the film was quite good, and did an excellent job presenting the science behind anthropogenic global warming theory, although I thought they oversimplified a great deal of the science behind climate change.

That said, you can feel free to completely disregard everything in Oracle's post. Every single one of his objections has been fully refuted by the theory. I haven't got time to respond to them all myself, so I'll just post you some links and let you decide for yourself.

Oh, and since I'll be referencing them a lot, RealClimate is a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists currently doing active research in the field. And IllConsidered is a Blog run by an intelligent layman and is dedicated to smashing down any pseudo-science on either side of the debate.

Regarding the supposed 'global cooling scare' that didn't exist:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

In response to his claims that 'warmer temperatures are better':

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html

Regarding his claims that this is a natural cycle, and that we're simply coming out of the last ice-age:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/09/we-are-just-recovering-from-lia.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=32

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/

And his remarks about climate models being weak and unable to predict what might happen were simply ridiculous. Climate scientists currently have a very thorough understanding of how the atmosphere works and responds to forcings, and have created a great number of refined and highly sophisticated models which have thus far had an enormously high success rate at predicting climate shifts.

Of course, had our friend Oracle taken the time to actually look at the science itself he could have figured all this out on his own by simply reading this:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

A short, whirlwind tour of Earth's climate history that quite clearly shows that the current trend isn't anything like what we've seen in the past.

Furthermore, he really should have researched his argument against Al Gore a little better for two reasons.

1) Mr. Gore is neither a climate scientist nor the leading expert on GW theory. So what he does or does not do is entirely irrelevant.

2) Mr. Gore uses carbon credits to offset his energy use, effectively reducing his carbon footprint to virtually nothing. And a majority of Mr. Gore's energy comes from renewable sources like hydro-electric and wind.

Answer 4

Reading the popular media can lead a person to conclude that "global warming" is:
o- either a hoax to promote business opportunities, politicians agenda and scientists grant money.....
OR
o- a problem related to overpopulation, industrialization and fossil fuels whose solution options lie in solar power, wind power, geothermal power and nuclear fusion....

However, the correct answer may be altogether different:

NASA has released never-before-seen images that show the sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously known. The international spacecraft Hinode, formerly known as Solar B, took the images. Hinode was launched Sept. 23 to study the sun's magnetic field and its explosive energy. National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists said the spacecraft's uninterrupted high-resolution observations of the sun are expected to have an impact on solar physics comparable to the Hubble Space Telescope's impact on astronomy. "For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnetized atmosphere," said Dick Fisher, director of NASA's Heliophyics Division. "These images will open a new era of study on some of the sun's processes that effect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and the solar system." Hinode is a collaborative mission led by
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and includes the European Space Agency and Britain's Particle Physics Astronomy Research
Council. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the development of the Hinode's scientific instrumentation provided by industry and federal agencies.

>>> as regards alternative energy methods, I favor development of the technology for nuclear fusion using lunar Helium 3

Answer 5

He's not making this up. Global warming is an established fact. This planet may very well be uninhabitable to humans, and most other species in as little as 50 years!

The people of the World need to act now! Anyone who is not actively trying to solve this problem is just whistling by the graveyard! This should be the top news story in every newspaper every day of the week!

Answer 6

I have not seen the film, but the whole point of the documentary was to influence you. Films like this have a special genre named for them, called "propaganda". The Nazi's also made very persuasive films, that made murder of handicapped people seem almost reasonable.

In this case, believe your parents. Al Gore's grasp of the issue is about on par with what you might find in Saturday morning cartoons.

Films can be entertaining, and films can be educational when they show, for example, how copper is mined and smelted. What a film cannot do is explain a very complex abstract issue like global climate.

And a true leader never asks his followers to do something that he is unwilling or unable to comply with himself. Al Gore likes his mansion and jet plane travel, and he personally consumes far more resources than the average American, but says "we" all have to cut back to save the world. Sort of like telling someone they have to go on a diet, while you pig out on fried chicken and ice cream.

Below is some background and perspective on the issue that Al Gore and his associates never seem to get around to presenting. Then decide for yourself if you should worry about it, or get on with your life.


We are currently within a long term "ice age", that cycles between a lot of ice covering everything (New York was under a mile of ice 20,000 years ago) and ice only covering Antarctica and Greenland.

When the ice recedes, it is called an "interglacial epoch". We are currently within one of these interglacial epochs, and this warm weather may last another 2,000 years or so until the glaciers descend again.

Within our interglacial epoch, the earth has been warmer than now, and cooler than now. We are currently warming up from a "little ice age" that occurred a few hundred years ago.

Our present temperature is still not as warm as it was over a thousand years ago. So if things get a little warmer over the next 200 years, it will STILL be within natural variance for temperatures on earth.

The return of extensive glaciation was a very popular end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it story thirty years ago. It meant the end of civilization, and the geological evidence is overwhelming that it will occur again.

Climate is always changing, and given the choice between cold weather and warm weather, people always pick the warm weather hands down. Telling people they should reduce their standard of living (down to some third world toilet) in order to enjoy COLDER winters is a non-starter.

People that travel by private jet and live in huge homes with massive carbon bootprints and clearly no intention of reducing their own standard of living, telling everyone else they have to sacrifice to save the world, gives new meaning to the word hypocrisy.


The global warming debate centers around release of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, and belief that computers can precisely model a complex coupled non-linear chaotic system.

The computers are not that good, and the downside to a small gradual warming over the next 200 years is nil compared to human tragedies that occur every day, and known threats to civilization.

*** NOTE ***

As you can tell from other answers, this is a controversial topic. And one answer has the interesting statement "... fully refuted by the theory." Theory? Whatever happened to just plain old facts?

If anyone wants to dispute the cycles of glaciation within our current ice age, their next stop is the funny farm.

The most important global warming gas is water vapor that retains heat. When water vapor condenses into clouds, the clouds reflect sunlight and cool the earth. This is the key feedback loop in climate, and computers don't model clouds.

Volcanic eruptions have an enormous impact on climate, and even in theory, climate models cannot model volcanos, since they are random events.

Medical research has a well-documented "placebo effect", and that is basically what you have in global warming. Some people's expectations that mankind is responsible for global warming are so strong, that they will start making things up and create ever more elaborate explanations in support of their beliefs.

At one time it was fashionable to consider other races inferior to whites. A scientific paper that measured skull size showed the better race had larger skulls. Unfortunately for the authors, they published their raw data. When re-analyzed, no such correlation was found. They were so intent on proving their theory, they unconsciousnessly made erroneous mathematical calculations.

I know it is astonishing ... but scientists can and do lie.

No scientific question is entirely clean-cut. Every experiment has some natural variance, "noise". If the results are too "clean", have too little variance, then you know the data is faked. Having EVERY single bit of climate evidence explained in favor of supporting anthropogenic global warming, with no variance, is simply not credible.

Answer 7

No no.. Al Gore didn't make it up. He's just repeating the pathetic science that somebody else made up.

The whole "the sky is falling" global warming arguments just don't add up.

Answer 8

Good Question my friend,

I am concerned about it enough to write this proposal for helping solve the Climate Change problem...

You can read and vote for it here if you like


http://www.changethis.com/proposals/918


the answer to the question can be found in the flash movie in this web page

http://www.outerheavens.blogspot.com

Thanks Guys. ;)