• 0
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Question

Posted · Report post

What do you think about climate change? Is man causing it? Or is it something like the Ice Age?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted · Report post

I didn't vote because it's clearly a mix of both. There's solid evidence that man-made emissions are speeding up atmospheric heat, but it's not just us because the Earth goes through natural cycles and whatnot. We need to reduce emissions, at a minimum :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I think it's more of an Ice Age thing than anything. Mankind isn't doing much to help (with all the pollution and whatnot), but Global Warming would be happening right now whether mankind existed or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

While Global warming may be a real occurance, I think it's attributation to Carbon Dioxide is dubious. CO2 is one of the most ineffectual of greenhouse gases. I want to get into the Carbon Credit selling business, it seems like a money maker. B))

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

first i will say that the Dutch and the english have had a 'good time' of the warm global effect, though short term obviously.

Sure Global warming, cooling is a natural cycle and there will be another iceage. Nature will take back all that man has ruined and in half the time if not sooner, it has a way of balancing it's self. man has affected it with industry clear cutting and open mining, as well as over fishing and hunting in general. So I dont think the problem is one the earth faces, we will face it and live through it

It's more complicated than that but I have too little time

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Well I can't vote for this for the reasons unreality stated. Man-made global warming is nothing compared to natural forces. The sun's current heating causes most of it. There are actually cases of cooling in certain Arctic areas. I feel like we should live as clean as possible. But that aside, we don't really account for much as far as climate change. IMO we should be more concerned with how we're hurting our own health with toxins and pollution. Climate change will happen with or without us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

I had never noticed the earth getting warmer. I did read about the North pole slowly melting and becoming nonexistent in many years to come. I don't believe there is anything we can do about the sun getting closer. At least, that is what seems to be happening. I think this past summer was cooler than what I noticed in the past. I say not to panic, until we have more to go on.

Edited by akaslickster
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I had never noticed the earth getting warmer. I did read about the North pole slowly melting and becoming nonexistent in many years to come. I don't believe there is anything we can do about the sun getting closer. At least, that is what seems to be happening. I think this past summer was cooler than what I noticed in the past. I say not to panic, until we have more to go on.

o.O

WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? IN A CAVE?!?!?!?!?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

First, the “pollution theory” suggests that the increase in the earth’s temperature is created by the pollutants of man; that global warming is created by the carbon dioxide emissions we are dumping into the atmosphere.

The other theory, which I will call the “sun theory”, suggests that global warming is being caused by the sun, because it is inconsistent in the intensity of the radiation it sends to earth.

Now which one of these is the true cause of global warming? There is a lot of evidence to support both.

Some research supports the theory that man is creating global warming. For instance, I recently watched Al Gore’s documentary “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Truth.” In that film, he presents a lot of valid information showing that, through time, an increase carbon dioxide has a direct correlation with the increase in global temperatures. The bulk of his information was gathered through the testing of glacier ice in the arctic. To gather that research, scientists bore deep into the ice and remove sections that date back thousands of years. They are then able to take samplings of the trapped CO2 in the ice, and at the same time make a very accurate determination of when the ice was formed. Gore’s data shows that dating back thousands of years, during warming periods, an increase in carbon dioxide is evident. It also shows a decrease in carbon dioxide during all of the Earth’s known ice ages.

When compared graphically, the two parallel each other, and there is plenty of data to back it up. Gore also goes into how man has been dumping a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which does prove to be about 3% of the atmosphere’s total carbon dioxide content. Now, overall, this is only three percent, but the pollution theory says that it is having a drastic impact on our climate change, and dire consequences with fall upon us if we do not learn to lower our emissions.

Research on the sun has revealed inconsistencies in sun activity. There are cycles of warming and cooling which is influencing the Earth’s temperature. When longitudinal data of sun activity is compared to glacier ice records, it is also graphically identical to warming and cooling periods, just like the carbon dioxide. This theory does not deny that increases in carbon dioxide are evident when the earth gets warmer, nor that that there is a decrease in CO2 when the ice ages occurred. * However, it points out that there is no known cause of pollutants that could create a rise in carbon dioxide content back when these ancient warming periods occurred (though volcanic activity can be speculated on). The sun theory suggests that it is not the CO2 that increases the temperature, but rather the increase in sun activity causes an increase in temperature, and an increase in the CO2 content of our atmosphere is actually a result, not the cause.

Our current increase in sun activity has been studied in a recent NASA survey of Mars and chronicled in National Geographic Magazine. Though surface photos of Mars show no water, it is presumed that there are underground springs, and in fact there are ice caps on the mountains. These ice caps are speculated to be either frozen water or frozen CO2. Either way, this NASA investigation has shown that the icecaps have been melting, at the same rate that earth’s temperature has been increasing. Now, there is no way our carbon dioxide could make it to mars, so the only explanation that they have come up with is that the sun’s intensity is causing the icecaps to melt. With that taken into play, Earth’s increase in temperature in relation to the sun’s activity, seems a much more plausible cause of global warming than man pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – especially when one considers that since the Industrial Revolution, or more specifically the past one hundred years, when all the temperatures are averaged together, the earth’s temperature has only increased one degree.

So I'm gonna have to fall on the side of... man-made global warming is a load of BS that is an incredibly effective wealth confiscation and redistribution technique... but I won't go into that right now :P

Edited by Brandonb
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I hadnt heard this theory about the sun getting closer/ more intense. I think whether its true or not, global warming's at least partly our fault.

And (optimistically) the world will eventually end anyway, when the sun burns out or something. Just to be cheerful.

I'm not saying we should just give up, though, but I doubt we could change the damage we've done much now unless everyone tried, not just a few countries.

I might be wrong, I dont know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I hadnt heard this theory about the sun getting closer/ more intense. I think whether its true or not, global warming's at least partly our fault.

And (optimistically) the world will eventually end anyway, when the sun burns out or something. Just to be cheerful.

I'm not saying we should just give up, though, but I doubt we could change the damage we've done much now unless everyone tried, not just a few countries.

I might be wrong, I dont know.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! THE SUN GETTING CLOSER?!?!?! THATS FUNNY!

Usually it's the earth that moves, not the sun ^_^

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Well, I meant the sun and earth getting closer together. But I guess I did sort of write it like that. :D

I hadnt heard the sun theory anyway, whatever it is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Wow. I'm surprised to see so much skepticism here. Maybe it's a US thing: I heard that there were many objectors to the CO2 theory in the US, but thought you'd got past that now. I may be completely wrong, but I would imagine that a Europe dominated discussion would be much more accepting of greenhouse gas theories and critical of man's influence.

So, let's clear up a few things:

- there is no suggestion that the Earth is changing its distance from the sun by an influential amount (other planets, etc do change our position, but not our orbit). However, sun spots etc do cause the radiation we receive to change quite substantially. These are in cycles of enormously varying periods, so are generally unpredictable.

- there are certainly cycles in the Earth's temperature, also with varying periods, so we could suggest that this is all natural. That's becoming a difficult argument as temperatures begin to change so drastically.

- there is a clear correlation between the temperature of the Earth and the quantity of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, as Bb stated. However, this doesn't mean that they are necessarily linked, but as temperatures continue to rise at an ever increasing rate, there are increasingly few alternative explanations.

- a warmer overall Earth has little relation to local temperatures. The best example being the UK: look at an atlas and marvel at how far north we are - the same latitude as Siberia or Canada. However, for various reasons, such as the Gulf Stream (a warm mass of water that comes up the east coast of the US and across the northern Atlantic), we have a very temperate climate. The chances are that global warming by a couple of degrees could turn us into a frozen wilderness (assuming we don't flood first :o).

- The Day After Tomorrow is scientifically rubbish.

I think most of the world (certainly the vast majority of scientists) is now clear that Global warming is happening and therefore, I'd say the cause is somewhat irrelevant. More important is how we respond to it. The most interesting reads I've had recently is this one: Scientific American

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Wow. I'm surprised to see so much skepticism here. Maybe it's a US thing: I heard that there were many objectors to the CO2 theory in the US, but thought you'd got past that now. I may be completely wrong, but I would imagine that a Europe dominated discussion would be much more accepting of greenhouse gas theories and critical of man's influence.

So, let's clear up a few things:

- there is no suggestion that the Earth is changing its distance from the sun by an influential amount (other planets, etc do change our position, but not our orbit). However, sun spots etc do cause the radiation we receive to change quite substantially. These are in cycles of enormously varying periods, so are generally unpredictable.

- there are certainly cycles in the Earth's temperature, also with varying periods, so we could suggest that this is all natural. That's becoming a difficult argument as temperatures begin to change so drastically.

- there is a clear correlation between the temperature of the Earth and the quantity of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, as Bb stated. However, this doesn't mean that they are necessarily linked, but as temperatures continue to rise at an ever increasing rate, there are increasingly few alternative explanations.

- a warmer overall Earth has little relation to local temperatures. The best example being the UK: look at an atlas and marvel at how far north we are - the same latitude as Siberia or Canada. However, for various reasons, such as the Gulf Stream (a warm mass of water that comes up the east coast of the US and across the northern Atlantic), we have a very temperate climate. The chances are that global warming by a couple of degrees could turn us into a frozen wilderness (assuming we don't flood first :o).

- The Day After Tomorrow is scientifically rubbish.

I think most of the world (certainly the vast majority of scientists) is now clear that Global warming is happening and therefore, I'd say the cause is somewhat irrelevant. More important is how we respond to it. The most interesting reads I've had recently is this one: Scientific American

Actually... the day afer tomarrow can really happen. Just alot of factors have to be in the right place at the right time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

The only thing I'm not convinced about in regard to global warming and greenhouse gases is the role that CO2 plays in the equation. It is true that there are direct corelations between the the amount of CO2 and the Earth's temperature, but what Al Gore didn't mention is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere historiclly lags behind changes in global temperature. So yes the graphs are almost identical in their peaks and furrows, but a peak in temperature will be followed by a peak in CO2 amounts. I believe if we concentrate all our efforts into reducing CO2 emmisions we may have wasted time and resources when there are other reasons that we should be looking at and other projects that may be a better use of our money. Humans can only claim responsiblity for 3.4% of the CO2 emmitted each year, the rest is all natural. It just seems that CO2 is being painted as a pollutant when it's quite essential for life. IMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I had never noticed the earth getting warmer. I did read about the North pole slowly melting and becoming nonexistent in many years to come. I don't believe there is anything we can do about the sun getting closer. At least, that is what seems to be happening. I think this past summer was cooler than what I noticed in the past. I say not to panic, until we have more to go on.

Haven't you been reading, watching or listening to the news?! Is that all you do on your computer? Going on BrainDen? HAHAHA!!!!!! :P:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! THE SUN GETTING CLOSER?!?!?! THATS FUNNY!

Usually it's the earth that moves, not the sun ^_^

What do you mean? The sun moves around our galaxy (The Milky Way).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Actually... the day afer tomarrow can really happen. Just alot of factors have to be in the right place at the right time.

I put that in because I'd mentioned the gulf stream and thought that someone might think I was basing my argument off it! But it's a film, destined for entertainment, and because they know that reality makes far less enjoyable watching. 'Abrupt' climate definitely would not happen as the film portrayed.

While the general idea of extreme climate changes are (possibly) realistic, in climate terms 'abrupt' means about 5 years minimum, and probably more like 50. The suggestion that an ice age (which would need to come after more significant global warming in most scenarios) could cover the earth in a matter of days is patently wrong IMHO. The whole bit about instantly freezing super-cell storms are unrealistic too. Firstly, hurricanes can only form over water, as it is water vapour that makes/drives them, and, secondly, it would (almost) impossible for air of such low temperatures to rapidly find its way down to the surface, without almost equally rapid warming of the air as it moves.

To be honest, I've not seen the film much more than once, mainly because these type films always have a couple of scientific mistakes which rile me so much that I can't enjoy them properly!

And, in response to Prof T, what is so concerning about greenhouse gas levels, is that very small changes in percentage can have very big impacts on temperature and climate. Yes, humans produce very small amounts of greenhouse gases compared to natural means (depending slightly on whether you blame us for farting cows! :lol: ), but our small increase, results in a bigger change elsewhere for the global ecosystem to compensate. However, I agree that reducing our emissions now (despite being nearly impossible) is somewhat futile - I'm all for the geoengineering projects of the type I put in my last post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I like Bb large post and its very interesting. The fact that he also adds a two line thought and makes his point - concise summing up.

We all have too little time to debate it properley. No one can say man has no impact on it or very little. The fact is that nature itself over balances too and corerects itself again - was it a good thing the dinosaurs were caught up in one of natures overbalances - it didn't do the human race harm n the long run. We are making huge mistakes in effective controls to reduce our effect on the environment, over foresting/deforestation, waste dumping and producing poisonous waste too. Adding to an inbalance and saying it makes no difference is not a way forward.

Correcting dms172's siggy .... Guns dont kill people - people kill people (natures way of punishing the 'mighty' human race)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

I'm doing some on-the-side research for my science teacher, and Global Warming is one of the topics I'm looking into. This has got to be the shortest essay I've ever written, but it covers CO2. I'll eventually write another one to cover some of the other theories. Please pardon mistakes, it's late, I've just finished, and it hasn't been properly looked over yet.

Global warming is in no way a new thing. Throughout history, there have been periods of time when it has been a lot colder than it is now (the series of ice ages definitely being some of our foremost evidence, as we didn't have much documentation way back when), but also a lot warmer. During the Cenozoic era 65 million years ago (began when the dinosaurs died out, also the beginning of mammals), Earth was about 18° - 27° Fahrenheit hotter than it is now. Clearly humans weren't alive back then, so I can say without a doubt that this was not our fault. Earth's temperature shot up even further after this period, leveled off, went down for a while, we had a few ice ages, and now the temperature is rising again. (Details can be found here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/)

There are many theories on what caused all this climate change, the Greenhouse Gas Effect most common among these. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make the atmosphere retain more of the heat from the sun, as it traps and re-directs the heat as it reflects back off the Earth. Contrary to common belief, green house gases are actually good for us. If we had no greenhouse gases in the air then we'd all be dead, because it'd be very, very, very cold. We are certainly putting more of these, CO2, SO2 and so on into the air, but the effect of that is dwarfed by the two main greenhouse gases, which are water vapor and methane. Though we have significantly added to the amount of methane through cattle ranches, flooded rice fields, and other things, all these gas emissions combined are still behind termites when it comes to the biggest producers of the stuff worldwide.

Human production of CO2 and SO2 also doesn't amount to much. A day, the average size volcano can emit anywhere from 20 tons to 10 million tons of S02, depending on volcanic activity, type, and the volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. Along with this, volcanoes release more than 130 millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere every year. Don't forget that there are thousands of volcanoes! C02 typically does not pose a direct hazard to life because it becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly. But in certain circumstances, C02 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people, especially in volcanic areas where C02 emissions occur.

The point is, volcanoes and termites combined, in one year, produce way more SO2 and CO2 than the human race has in its entire history. Volcanoes came before us, volcanoes will stay pretty much long after we're gone. The planet is going to be fine pretty much fine whatever we do, but we stand some chance of wiping out a fair amount of life. So to conclude, it's mostly a natural process (heh, actually it's kind of arrogant to actually think we have so much affect on our planet), but we are doing something to make it worse, and being natural doesn't mean it'll be good for us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

The point is, volcanoes and termites combined, in one year, produce way more SO2 and CO2 than the human race has in its entire history. Volcanoes came before us, volcanoes will stay pretty much long after we're gone. The planet is going to be fine pretty much fine whatever we do, but we stand some chance of wiping out a fair amount of life. So to conclude, it's mostly a natural process (heh, actually it's kind of arrogant to actually think we have so much affect on our planet), but we are doing something to make it worse, and being natural doesn't mean it'll be good for us.

The one thing not addressed Izzy is that balance again should be done by nature and not man - perhaps we can learn o 'control' the environment, but we have been hacking the planet to pieces (deforestation), which can right it'self in 50 - 100 years at the moment. So apart from the human race raping the earth when it gets a chance to make money - at a cost to pay by the next generation eg ..affecting the water table by open mining for minerals. We are not decreasing we are increasing

we are not doing enough to slow it down by recycling in this got to have it now disposable age... Must get the latest gadget/car/product...

I will have to look at your termite info, sounds interesting

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.