Why doesn't people see global warming as a threat?

Question

All those massive glaciers n' ice are turning into now partial ice. If this rate continues, there will be no more arctic animals n' life. So my question is that why do individuals care more about their self-proclaimed fame n' possessions instead of the bigger picture?

Answer 1

All those massive glaciers and ice melting could just as likely be a threat of global cooling. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution posted a very interesting article documenting that they have reason to be concerned about a serious global cooling event caused by ice melting in the Arctic.

I quote:
" If cold, salty North Atlantic waters did not sink, a primary force driving global ocean circulation could slacken and cease. Existing currents could weaken or be redirected. The resulting reorganization of the ocean’s circulation would reconfigure Earth’s climate patterns."

They continue "it would produce winters twice as cold as the worst winters on record in the eastern United States in the past century" and "if thermohaline circulation shuts down and induces a climate transition, severe winters in the North Atlantic region would likely persist for decades to centuries".

The possible cause of all of this would be an influx of fresh water from polar ice and glacial ice, which you seem concerned about. Currently, data going back to the 1960's shows that the subpolar seas of the North Atlantic have steadily become less saline to depths of 1000 to 4000 meters. This is the largest oceanic change measured since modern instrumentation has been used. If the Great Conveyer slows or stops, we may have a bigger problem than global warming.
See:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986

To add to this, there are records of this happening in the geologic past. About 12,700 years before present, Earth went through a warming period and the Conveyor was disrupted. Within a decade average temperatures of the North Atlantic region plummeted by about 5 degrees Celsius. This period was known as the Younger Dryas, named after an arctic flower that thrived in Europe and the US during this period. Icebergs floated as far south as Portugal.

A similar cooling event took place about 8200 years before present that lasted for about a century.

Ocean circulation also played an important role in the Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1850. This period of severe winters had significant impact on civilization. The Norse abandoned Greenland, and disease, famine, and crop failures were common.

By the way, the Polar Bear survived periods in the Arctic when Arctic temperatures averaged as much as 2-3 degrees warmer than today as far back as 120,000 years before present. Arctic animals are not threatened by climate, but could be threatened by other changes we have caused.

When I don't agree with your image of the bigger picture, it is hard to understand why I don't see the same threat? I am much more concerned by overpopulation and the possibility that peak oil will cause world-wide economic meltdown. I have no more interest in "fame n' possessions" than I imagine you do, but that doesn't mean my motivation is worrying about global warming as a threat.

You do realize that using a computer contributes to global warming in a major way? The servers operated by Yahoo! and Google combined use more electricity than most small countries. Are you doing your part? or just engaging in hand-wringing?

Answer 2

You mention "the big picture", well then that a closer look on the facts of GW.
1. CO2 account for only 0.003% aatmospheric composition.
2. There has only been a 0.001% increase in anthropolical CO2
3. That isn't enough to produce a GW sinario that is being predicted.
4. The last glacial maxim was about 150-100 thousand years ago and the wold has been warming ever since.
5. GW has occured naturaly in the past and will again in the future and all life will still exist dispite it happening..
6. Climate change is a main factor in driving evolution.
I could continue on but I thinik that you have already made up your mind on the subject
Geomatic7000 and Now and Then Comes a Thought are also correct in there answer.
GW is a natural cycle and over population is the real issue

Answer 3

I, honestly, am more concerned about the fact that a generation of people who are supposed to be bright enough to fix the problems of the world cannot use proper grammar or proper usage and mechanics if their lives depended on it.

It is a very real threat if the warming continues. However, man cannot do a thing to change Earth's natural cycles. The best we can do is develop ways to deal with the changes.

Answer 4

i will assert international warming as a results of fact as a results of fact the Earth heats it incredibly is going to reason an absence of materials that would extend the outcomes of a international recession. previous that a recession could be "mounted" as a results of fact markets will ultimately get well with the advent of latest products and centers. A 2001 IPCC record states there is new and bigger data that lots of the warming spoke of over the final 50 years is consequently of human activities. Detection and attribution examine consistently discover data for an anthropogenic sign interior the climate checklist of the final 35 to 50 years. those examine comprise uncertainties in forcing as a results of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and organic aspects (volcanoes and image voltaic irradiance), yet do not account for the outcomes of alternative sorts of anthropogenic aerosols and land-use transformations. The sulfate and organic forcings are destructive over this era and can't clarify the warming; while maximum of those examine discover that, over the final 50 years, the predicted value and value of warming as a results of increasing greenhouse gases on my own are comparable with, or extra effective than, the spoke of warming. the terrific contract between sort simulations and observations over the final a hundred and forty years has been got here upon while all the above anthropogenic and organic forcing aspects are mixed, as shown in parent SPM-2.

Answer 5

Even if global warming is accepted as a fact, the question remains as to what part mankind plays in this phenomenon.

Hot periods and ice-ages have occurred in the past before the ascent of man and who is to say that the current global warming spell is not also a natural event over which man has little or no contol.

Answer 6

I don't see it as a threat compared to the real threat. Over consuption, partially due to greed but mostly due to over population. You won't ever get many people to voluteer to have less kids, so we are dooming ourselves to let nature reduce the population in a random manner. Whether that is by global warming induced famine, extinction of species we rely on for food, pandemic disease, or one of the thousands of other possible ways for a huge portion of humans to die... most people would rather have that for our future than have a little self control today.

Answer 7

Do you? I do, but for example, I keep throwing stuff in the trash can that seems recyclable (except paper) and I can't do a thing because where I live we don't recycle cans or plastic nearby. So, what happens to that extra 2 bags of trash everyday? They get burned and buried thus sending all kinds of stuff to the world that makes glaciers melt and worse. AND, don't forget spray cans.

Answer 8

I believe that global warming is indeed a big issue that needs to be considered.

Some people are just too blind and too selfish to care about the effects of global warming. Just because they aren't affected much, doesn't mean they shouldn't care about it. Unfortunately, that's what's going on.

Instead of finding solutions for this problem, people just ignore it amidst all the propaganda.

Answer 9

It's always easier to ignore a problem instead of fix it.

Wait until big things (like coastal flooding) start to happen and suddenly everybody will be worried about global warming.

Answer 10

If you actually think that Global Warming is Man-made, then you got some growing up to do and do a little research instead of taking Al Gore's word for it.