Is Global Warming Happening?
Yes, we need to take action.
Side Score: 98
|
 |
No, it is a natural cycle.
Side Score: 89
|
|
It is certainly happening. We need to accept the evidence for it and act before its too late. The oceans are warming up, and even a few degrees is enough to destroy ecosystems. The coral reefs which reside in shallow water are dieing off and not growing back as a direct consequence of global warming. Most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced. If we fail to act in time, it will not matter how much money we save in doing nothing. 548 days ago
It was always happening. ARG. sorry, yeah, makes me angry because people always think before humans, there was no global warming. Anyway, back to the argument. Yes, the oceans are warming up, which will reduce the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which will put out more CO2. If CO2 had a significant effect on global warming, then it's a self reinforcing cycle and we would have been crisp long ago. I do concur that dying coral reefs is quite bad, because it means we're destroying natural resources, it's just that we aren't the ones causing it. Also, 'most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced', come on, that is blatant appeal to authority. Most of the world once thought the world was flat, did that make them right? 544 days ago
The earth has gone through cycles of cold and warm throughout its history, but the global warming now is alarming because it is happening quicker and with steeper effects. most of the time i hate appealing to authority because you're right most of the world thought that the earth was flat at one time. I feel that this is different because we have come to the conclusion of global warming on science and evidence, something they didn't have as much as when they thought that the world was flat. also the whole job of a scientist is to study and learn and i feel that must count for something. Even if global warming weren't true would you want to take the risk? the steps we can take to stop global warming such as changing our source of energy have multiple advantages besides saving the earth. We can eliminate our dependence on oil, and we can start the market for renewable energy which once started and demand increased will lower in price and become profitable. 544 days ago
Yes, Global Warming is happening. According to an estimate, after 10 years from now, people will be using skin protectors and temperature controller devices in their homes. According to me, whatever we do now to reduce or eliminate this effect, we cannot control it. Yes, now it is too late and we are helpless. A group of handful activists cannot eliminate this effect, and the rest are uninterested. 548 days ago
I am gonna cry after this. HOW COULD NAT GEO DO THIS??? a. The sunlight's intensity falling on earth is a much bigger factor than the percentage the atmosphere absorbs. "the greenhouse effect begins with the sun, and the energy it radiates towards the earth". Does that not tell you that if the energy of the sun changes, so to will the amount of radiance absorbed? b.'Naturally occurring greenhouse gasses' includes water vapour which is a much greater constituent of global warming than anything else, contributing 95% of the total sunlight energy absorption. Compared to this, Carbon dioxide and Methane don't even measure. c. Did not they begin with 'earth's climate has fluctuated, cycling from ice ages to warmer periods'? Then suddenly humans come along and change it, well, what happened to all the other factors? d. In the last CENTURY, the planet's temperature has risen unusually fast. Global industrialization did not take off until the post WWII boom, which would suggest that temperatures should increase most significantly during the 50's and 60's, however records and ice cores show that in fact, during the 50's, 60's and 70's, the global temperature decreased... what gives? If an external factor affected this, obviously that factor is much more powerful than the combined efforts of the Global economy to pump out CO2 d. 'Scientists believe', no, scientists do not believe, they provide impartial evidence for. Also, there has been significant political interference with modern science, a recent survey at the EPA recording that 41% of scientists feel that their work was misrepresented and/or distorted by politicians. So who's opinion is really being broad-casted? e. 'Evidence for global warming includes a recent string of very warm years'. RECENT. Yes, it may indicate global warming, but because it has only been a short spell, you cannot conclude it is a trend. f. 'researchers predict that'. Is that not ambiguous? Who? What qualifications do they hold? How did they research? Was their research valid? g. Focus on possibilities. Yes, it could mean this, or it could mean nothing. Nothing is gained from speculation, rather one should focus on what has happened, and attempt to extrapolate. Better yet, tell us why researchers think this, or that, rather than dwell on possibilities. The most obvious stamp of propaganda is fear, and when one speculates, a lot of bad things can happen. 544 days ago
I am going to provide scientific articles that directly refute what Turpificatus is saying: A) For one thing, the atmosphere regulates the heat and cold of the earth to a heavy degree. This link, which I am using as a tongue-in-cheek (but true) reference illustrates a orbital body which is just as close to the sun as we are but lacks an atmosphere:http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/moontemp.shtml The moon's temperature varies from a couple hundred degree below zero to a couple hundred degrees above zero (Celcius). The Earth would go through about the same temperatures without our atmosphere. This is very, very basic science. B) You have to understand a couple things about science: they talk in scales that are very different from what we commonly understand. To a geologist 10,000 years is an extremely short period of time....but that is our history as a human civilization (when civilizations started to arise). The carbon being released into the atmosphere is going to raise global average temperatures by just a couple degrees. However, that has huge consequences for us. If the planet warms by twenty degrees we won't be able to survive as species. So you are right, the impact is small when speaking in climatological terms...but the impact is massive when you consider human civilization and human survival. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html C) There was 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in 2004, one year. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-21-carbon-dioxide-emissions_N.htm?csp=34 In one major eruption, a volcano can drop global temperatures by a few degrees. Those volcanic eruptions spew a few MILLION tons of byproducts into the atmosphere, at one time. I think you need to think harder on how much of an impact human beings are having on the earth. Our productive capacity has grown immensely in a short period of time, in 1980 we only spewed 18 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, a 60% increase in 24 years. http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.php D) There were quite a number of volcanic eruptions during the time-frame you are talking about. Scientists have long known that both the sun and volcanoes have an effect on the climate. Unfortunately for you, the sun has been on a decreasing energy trend (though there may be periodic upward spikes). http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ You are also conflating a couple of things about industrialization: Yes, it began in the 1890s and became a major force in the 1920s-30s. But this occurred mostly in the United States and Europe. The scale has been on the increase ever since, and as industrialization has increased (along with population) around the world the greater effect it's having. According to the above link, the sun and volcanoes were able to mask this warming up to a point, but now our CO2 and other greenhouse byproducts have increased beyond what these and other natural processes can counter. D2) That study you are citing works entirely against you. I am absolutely astounded that you do not understand what those scientists were saying, what politicians they are talking about. Those scientists have been interfered with by conservative politicians trying to keep people from hearing the truth about global warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_ From the article: ""OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons," said a scientist from one of the agency's regional offices. "Because the real reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit." I am appalled that you would misrepresent the article, that you would outright distort the truth behind it. The scientists are complaining that the White House has been censoring their findings about global warming, not that liberal politicians have been keeping them from telling people that it isn't real or man-made. You should be ashamed for either lying about these facts or not doing sufficient research and reading the articles you are talking about. E) You may want to have a word with NOAA and every single prestigious scientific and climate-science oriented body in North America and the world: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ F) and G) http://www.livescience. http://www.nsf.gov/news/ http://www.pewclimate.org/ http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/03/ http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ccp/ http://www.giss.nasa. It usually isn't considered propaganda when most independent scientists and scientific organizations in that particular field agree with most if not all of what is said. I think you need to do a little bit more research before you start getting overly upset about organizations saying such things about global warming. National Geographic has almost the entire scientific community behind it, what exactly do you have? 543 days ago
Reading through these one has to wonder, as I have in the past when others of the right have stood up to the majority of scientists, decrying what they propose, why individuals like turpificatus would not at least say something like "Certainly big business and humanity need to curb their emissions of harmful pollutants" or "Even if humans aren't creating the global warming we could try to better our polluting ways and clean things up, just in case because we know what we're doing isn't making our world 'better'." It often reeks of big business agendas, but I suppose could just be an instance of fear (fear that the evidence given is true and so ugly does not want to face) inducing contrary reactions. 543 days ago
"The sunlight's intensity falling on earth is a much bigger factor than the percentage the atmosphere absorbs." But the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth is dictated by how much is absorbed by the atmosphere, so while badly expressed, the program got it right. The amount of heat radiated by the sun may vary naturally, but there's no real chance of permanent changes for hundreds of thousands of years, when it starts to run out of fissile material. Although you say "Global industrialization did not take off until the post WWII boom,", this isn't about globalisation, this is about major industries creating CO2 emissions, and that started with the Industrial Revolution, starting in the late eighteenth century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 543 days ago
The problem is that we are stuck with the misnomer "Global Warming" because it's a nice, neat, media soundbyte. If you follow the science of meteorology at all, the effects on the environment - raising the temperature enough to melt polar ice caps - is accompanied by extreme winter weather... so the 'warming' isn't really evident when looking at 'average' temperatures. But anyone who thinks that the melting of the polar icecaps and the rise in water levels, increase in hurricane intensities, increase of cyclonic activity, tornadoes, earthquakes and extreme weather isn't related to the amount of pollution in our atmosphere? Needs to go retake 9th grade Earth Science. 543 days ago
In case anyone doesn't think it's real: Barcelona authorities are having to take the unprecedented step of having to have water brought in by giant tankers. The water levels in the reservoir that feeds the city has sunk so low it's exposed the eerie sight of a medieval village that was flooded when the reservoir was opened in the 1960s. See for yourselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/ And check out this NYT article, "Family Science Project Yields Surprising Data About a Siberian Lake" - Since 1945, Dr. Kozhov, a professor at Irkutsk State University, would record water temperature and clarity and track the plant and animal plankton species as deep as 2,400 feet. Later other family members and now scientist continued his work to find surprising warming of "very deep" water temperatures. Some of these things may be happening naturally, but what level of ignorance would say that "we" don't have something to do with it! 543 days ago
"Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period, including changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities."
Supporting Evidence:
NASA Team Pinpoints Human Causes of Global Warming
(www.dailygalaxy.com)
540 days ago
Global warming is happening and i think that everybody should make an action to stop this. It is not too late yet and we should try to do something before its to late. If everybody joins together and make an action we can make a difference and stop this. 422 days ago | Tagged As: Yes, we need to take action.
Global warming is happening. According to the United States Environmental Protection agency brochure entitled, Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics, "Scientists have observed a warming trend beginning around the late 1800s. The most rapid warming has occurred in recent decades. Most of this recent warming is very likely the result of human activities." Also according to the US EPA, "Many human activities release “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. The levels of these gases are increasing at a faster rate than at any time in hundreds of thousands of years." The earth really is getting hotter. Stated by the Natural Resources Defense Council's website, "Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history." Fred Singer, a atmospheric physicist and a know global warming skeptic, argures that global warming is not occuring, but Singer is using data from satellites that measure the atmospheric tempurature of the Earth rather that using data that states surface tempuratures of the Earth. This information is found on http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/
Supporting Evidence:
US EPA's website for Brochure on Global Warming
(www.epa.gov)
176 days ago | Tagged As: Yes, we need to take action.
Great! Thank you for this great information which I've just gain by stopping here. Infect i am student and was busy in my study but still get time of few minutes to being on your site while searching about my course thesis project which i'm sure will be completed soon. I enjoyed my stay and really like to be here again.
Supporting Evidence:
testking HP0-D01
(www.real-testking.com)
73 days ago | Tagged As: Yes, we need to take action.
Yes it's happening, the evidence is overwhelming. We need to take action because the evidence that it is largely caused by human technology is convincing as well. Every time I hear the roar, feel the heat, smell the fumes of a car I think about the noise/heat/smell of the manufacturing processes which built it and so on in lengthy regression. Noise/heat/smell is indicative of inefficient energy transfer aka pollution. Multiply this by the trillions of units of technology whirring, clicking and beeping in the world and it's clear we have an affect on the environment that can be improved. 543 days ago
There is no doubt whatsoever that it is happening, there is no controversy on this point. There are however some crazy loons who think it's not attributable to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere but whatever the cause, it is happening - natural cycle or not. This side of the debate should have been 'are humans the cause'. 508 days ago
|
Although this question is slightly misleading, because Global Warming does exist, and it is part of a natural cycle. When we look at earth's history, the climate on earth is not dictated so much by carbon dioxide, but by the Sun's radiance. Nothing short of a dysonsphere is going to liberate earth's climate from the sun. To address ideas about carbon dioxide and temperature, one must realise that ice cores samples show carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, however rather than carbon dioxide affect temperature, when superimposed, Carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind, by an average of 800 years. This can be explained by the solubility of Carbon dioxide in water as a function of the temperature of water (warmer water will dissolve less carbon dioxide). Likewise, when we superimpose recorded sunspot activity over temperature levels, there is a much closer correlation between temperature and sun surface activity than between temperature and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, if we want to really consider greenhouse gases, Water Vapour contributes 95% of greenhouse warming, without which, we would be a frozen deslolate planet. 544 days ago
The global warming that we've been experiencing over the past decade or so is part of a natural cycle that will be reversed in the near future. Check out the article that shows we are about to experience a 23 year Global Cooling period.
Supporting Evidence:
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
(canadafreepress.com)
542 days ago
Its happening, just not for the reasons mentioned in traditional media. It is the natural cycle of Earth. Recent studies suggest we could experience significant cooling do to the solar cycles in 150 years (I don't have a citation). I do what I can to protect the Earth, but if we disappeared from the planet, in 1000 years (nothing on the scale of the universe) there would be no evidence our civilization ever existed. 543 days ago
Kid Global warming is most likely a normal cycle; which may or may not be exacerbated by humans. It's consequences may or may not be as bad as most experts would lead us to believe. That being said...there is no way you can call it a "myth". It's very real. All sides pro and con agree on this. 543 days ago
People who say "scientists have already proven" global warming is a hoax either aren't paying attention to any scientists or are listening to right-wing radio. The IPCC (Internation Panel on Climate Change) has put together four reports on the issue with contributions from over two thousand scientists. I defy you to find a comprehensive report with that many scientific minds saying climate change is a hoax. Seriously, go find it for me. When you give up let me know. Also, no scientist is willing to conclusively say 100% that climate change is man-made and will lead to catastrophes, because they know that no matter how sure they are, their work is still a scientific theory, they are very careful about their wording. This last report from the IPCC was regarded as "the strongest wording yet" on climate change. The point is, any scientist who says conclusively that global warming is a myth is a shitty scientist . . . and probably a dickbag. 512 days ago
As far as I can tell the IPCC is a political body that receives data and conclusions concerning bits and pieces of the climate picture; such as findings regarding solar output or findings concerning the effect of co2 on solar radiation retention. This political panel uses the information submitted by scientists to form conclusions on climate, how it will affect humans, and what needs to be done to reverse any adverse affects. The IPCC is biased from the beginning, in their approach, by assuming something is wrong with climate and we must fix it. This gives me trepidations about having a panel of a few politicians sift through the mountain of data submitted by scientists in order to make conclusions about what is causing a change in the weather from what we saw a few decades ago(The earth is many thousands of decades old). I am then supposed to trust that this panel has considered all submitted data for the report are you nuts!!! The other thing that worries me is the lack of credentials of panelists provided on the IPCC website. So as far as i can tell AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming), as you see it, sir, is based on the IPCC reports which so far as I can tell are written by politicians. These politicians can use the information provided any way they see fit, they could make honest mistakes leading to the wrong conclusions or they could manufacture conclusions or they could just be right. The very existence of the IPCC to me ruins the argument of a consensus and of the peer review process. I mean come on Stalin and Hitler both were both peer reviewed and had reached a consensus among their political parties to commit mass genocide. I personally think science should be done by scientists not politicians. I personally don't think humans are causing a rampant heating of the planet, but that does not mean I won't keep an open mind. 86 days ago | Tagged As: No, it is a natural cycle.
It is happening, yes, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Sure, using "green" technology is a good thing, but the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember the ice age? We are now going into Earth's heating cycle. A "heat age" so to speak. People also make a big deal about the polar ice caps melting due to global warming. Something I don't think many of them realize: The ice up north is already floating on water. Water also expands, rather than contracts, when it freezes. Therefore, if the northern ice were to melt, without the ice in Antarctica melting, the sea level would actually decline due to the ice not taking up so much space. Combine that with the ice in the south melting....Well, the sea level wouldn't change all that much. 543 days ago
Actually, Dead Eye, ice takes up the exact same amount of space as water, the water level wouldn't change at all. However, that is only the case with sea ice, ice that is floating in the water. Unfortunately, there is ice on land on both Antarctica and Greenland that would cause sea levels to rise by 20-40 feet world-wide. Anyways, I dare you to find reputable sources that back up this claim: "It is happening, yes, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Sure, using "green" technology is a good thing, but the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember the ice age? We are now going into Earth's heating cycle. A "heat age" so to speak." 542 days ago
Al Gore and his slideshow.Look what he has done.I guess he answered one of the other questions I saw on here.Would you kill one person to save 100?He is the one flying on private jets all over the world showing his middle school slideshow.Greater good huh. I guess its OK for him to have 30000 dollar light bills since its offset by his work for the global warming cult.Sorry to go Gore but he is the face of global warming. I believe its the socialist driven agenda to take more of our freedom and money so they can save us from ourselves. 537 days ago
Thank you for this great information which I've just gain by stopping here. Infect i am student and was busy in my study but still get time of few minutes to being on your site while searching about my course thesis project which i'm sure will be completed soon. I enjoyed my stay and really like to be here again.
Supporting Evidence:
70-271 exam
(www.actual-exams.com)
98 days ago | Tagged As: No, it is a natural cycle.
Global warming IS a natural cycle. The same thing happened not too long ago (I believe less than a century) and will happen again. There will be a time when the earth replenishes it's atmosphere but that time is way beyond ours and I believe the Earth will give us fair warning before that happens. (A good movie to watch to give an idea on what will happen would be "The Day after Tomorrow") Nevertheless, we are harming the earth in many ways by our exhaust emissions and we should put a stop to it, but it is only speeding up global warming which is a natural cycle, not "causing" it. 73 days ago | Tagged As: No, it is a natural cycle.
|
