Is Global warming real?

[julesa]

Where's the poll about whether pollution and environmental degradation are real?

Yes, and make sure it looks something like this:

It's not real
It's real, and 100% caused by aliens
It's real, and 100% caused by sasquatches
It's real, and 100% caused by the Illuminati
It's real, and 100% caused by the mole men
It's real, and caused by the war between the Illuminati and the mole men

Edit:
'Cause you have to make sure you cover all the possible options when you create a poll.

[Gregory]

I believe the correct term these days is Climate Change rather than Global warming.

It's amazing to see so many people respond who think "global warming" is a natural phenomenon. I personally think it is better to be safe than sorry and err on the side of caution and am trying to cut my carbon footprint.

However the media certainly do have issues with their shock and awe style of reporting the issue.

I don't want to leave my kids a huge mess to clean up.

Greg

[Lessss]

The problem is there is so much deliberate misinformation being pput out by industry and by political activists.
Al Gore is WRONG. Co2 does not cause increases in temperature but FOLLOWS a rise in temperature.
Look at Al Gore's an inconvienient truth data. The CO2 increase follows the temperature increase disproving his own theory.
However if you overlap sunspot activity you see that sunspot activity DOES occur BEFORE the temperature increase.
The Earth has historically been much much warmer.
The problem is that high CO2 levels will actually mean starvation for humanity because food has less than half it's nutrient value when grown in a high CO2 atmosphere.
Not to mention that CO2 is a marker gas for real pollution of the kind that directly impacts human health. The higher the CO2 level the higher the level of the real pollutants.

The environmentalists don't care about CO2 sequestering etc.. because the agenda they are pushing is de-industrialization.
Industry is fighting with it's own propoganda with unrealistic CO2 sequestering et al because they don't want to put in place REAL pollution controls.

All I can say is that more and more industrialization means more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people (like the morrally corrupt and pure evil Monsanto Corporation), the permanent destruction of natural habitat, spoiling of watershed and fresh water drinking supplies.



Why put up with a car that falls apart in 15 years, when we can build one that last 200 that would provide real employment for skilled workers?? Becasue it feeds the consumption industial complex. Now CO2 levels are now at levels never seen before and there is no real way of knowing what effect that will have in a higher temperature atmosphere. We shouldn't risk finding out.

[julesa]

The problem is there is so much deliberate misinformation being pput out by industry and by political activists. Al Gore is WRONG. Co2 does not cause increases in temperature but FOLLOWS a rise in temperature. Look at Al Gore's an inconvienient truth data. The CO2 increase follows the temperature increase disproving his own theory.

The fact that CO2 followed temperature in past events only suggests there's a mechanism by which increased temperature releases more CO2. Like for instance, more rotting of vegetative matter closer to the poles. Atmospheric CO2 rise followed temperature rise in past warming events, but there's no reason to assume CO2 MUST follow temperature, and certainly no reason to assume it can't precede temperature since that's what's happening today. So it doesn't prove Gore wrong.

Suppose the last temperature increases were caused by something external to the Earth. The Earth warms up, triggering the release of more CO2. But suppose this time the temperature increase is caused by pumping megatons of new CO2 into what used to be a relatively closed system. This could trigger a release of even more CO2 from whatever mechanism caused the CO2 rise in past warming events. That's why people are concerned about climate feedback loops.

[Lapwing]

To all you doubters that "believe" this is a natural, and I am shocked that the survey suggestests a large portion of humanity, lets spell it out.


Back in May 1959 John Tyndall figured out and demonstrated the physicas that explains why earth is is not a frosty snow-cone. Please read the new Scientist article. below.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500-the-man-who-discovered-greenhouse-gases.html

Now with this new insight into the actual science, consider that CO2 levels have been recorded for a very long time and we can infer from the increases over the last 100 years, coinsides with industrialisation and our use of coal and then oil & having lived 35 years in the third world, massive changes in vegetation coverage.

ElectricEd is right on in his analysis,

Researching more, found that by isotopic analysis it had bean found what part of CO2 in the atmosphere was natural and what was anthropogenic

. Thank God for intellect way sharper than mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

As an aside, my father was a civil engineer, and traveled all over africa surveying and photgraphing in the 1960's. I visited many of the places he camped out in the bush. When I look at his old photo's and what I found, the changes are a stark testement to how profoundly man can change a landscape.[url][/url]

[deronmoped]

This GW thread has been closed.

You can now post your vote and comments to the GC poll.

Deron.

[Lock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=PlayList&p=92EE5DBE2987982F&index=0&playnext=1
tks
Lock

[Capo_au]

Wow I must say, I find that poll result a little disturbing..

Having studied the topic both formally and informally I guess its easy to become disconnect with public opinion at large.

Or maybe its just that the public opinion in the US is a lot different to that here in Australia.

[liveforphysics]

The cows in India alone are a larger greenhouse gas contributer than all of the gas burning transportation in the USA.

The greenhouse gas emissions from the rainforests and wetlands make all the carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions released by humans look pretty tiny.

If someone was serious about slowing global warming, they would quit playing around with the tiny slice of the global warming gas production (all of humanity), and focus on the giant remainder of the pie (rainforests, wetlands, etc).

Slash and burn the rainforests and drain wetlands if you actually give a damn about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Napalm bombs could actually make it a realistic change on the earth that humans could influence. The carbon released in burning it is so minor compared to the natural methane production of the rainforest, the complete burning is offset in just a few years, then a few years later we have compensated for all carbon/greenhouse gas emissions released over the history of humanity, and then rapidly start dropping below.

However, I personally would rather live on a planet that averages a surface temp 0.6degF warmer by the year 2,100 (according to NASA data), than to live on a planet with no rainforests and wetlands, because I think biodiversity is worth the trouble.

[liveforphysics]

For the folks observing changes in flora and fauna in the environment. Good observational power.

Don't forget that the Sahara desert was once a thick rainforest.
The mid-western area of the united states was the bottom of an ocean.
The lush areas of South America were desert.
There are marine fossils at 20,000ft in the Himalayas.

Things change on the earth.

In the world, there are places where plains turn to deserts, and other places where deserts turn into plains. Places where plains turn to forests, and others where forest encroach onto plains. Areas were land become flooded wetlands, and other areas wetlands dry to become forest or plains.

Things change.

When you happen to have a seat in front of an area shifting towards desert, it's an ugly change to watch. The only option is to change your seat.

[TPA]

The cows in India alone are a larger greenhouse gas contributer than all of the gas burning transportation in the USA.

Thank goodness we killed all those Buffalo!!!!

[dak664]

I don't know about cows in India, but those in the USA contribute less than 1/10th (140Tg CO2-eq) to greenhouse gases compared to USA transportation fuels (2000Tg), according to
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

[julesa]

The cows in India alone are a larger greenhouse gas contributer than all of the gas burning transportation in the USA.

You're a smart guy. Why do you keep repeating this? Even if it's true, it's meaningless.

Imagine you have a balanced scale. For centuries, large weights have continually been placed on both sides, and removed from both sides. Over all this time, the weights on both sides have been matched very closely on average.

Then humans come along, and start sprinkling a couple tiny feathers on one side of the scale only. After a hundred years, the feathers are piling up pretty high. So what if the feathers don't weigh as much as the large weights? They're still perfectly capable of shifting the average balance point.

Besides, Like I said recently in another GW thread... all the carbon emitted by a cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by whatever plants the cow was eating. Net bovine atmospheric carbon impact = zero.

Last, warming is not the only effect of increased atmospheric carbon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737

[swbluto]

The cows in India alone are a larger greenhouse gas contributer than all of the gas burning transportation in the USA.

Besides, Like I said recently in another GW thread... all the carbon emitted by a cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by whatever plants the cow was eating. Net bovine atmospheric carbon impact = zero.

This is true. Plants absorb carbon from CO2 residing in the air, expelling O2 as a waste product. However, CO2 is emitted as a waste product by most carbon lifeforms who breath in O2, so it seems there was a historical balance. I kind of wonder how much the explosion of the human population, relative to all other species including plants, has unbalanced the historical cycle? The explosion in the human population has been made possible by amplifying food yields with modern technology and by advancing medical technology.

Here's a source that claims human breath emits about 8% of world-wide carbon emissions.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/1022

The reason why I question the relationship between the human population and CO2 levels is how eerily similar the CO2 and human population curves are. Even back in 1900 when practically very little cars existed, this relationship still existed.

Carbon Dioxide history (Top graphic, carbon; Right side, 1500s to Now)
http://nordpil.com/static/images/carbon_dioxide_and_temperature_historic_trends_full.png

You'll notice that the carbon started growing exponentially shortly after the 1800s.

You'll notice that the human population started growing significantly around the 1700-1800's which is an odd amount of timing.

So, in essence, I think the main cause behind the increase in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries is due to disproportionate human population growth due to advancing food and medical technologies. The industrial revolution and other carbon-based devices (Like cars) afterwards had a way of amplifying the carbon contribution of each person (It might have multiplied it upto 12 times, as the 8% human breath statistic might imply, but I think it's probably close to 4-8x. Whatever the case, it's clear the carbon contribution per person hasn't grown in a similarly exponential way as much as human population itself has.), but the root of the exponential growth of CO2 emission is human population.

[liveforphysics]

Besides, Like I said recently in another GW thread... all the carbon emitted by a cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by whatever plants the cow was eating. Net bovine atmospheric carbon impact = zero.

Perhaps a whisker of education and/or thought before speaking on a topic?

Methane = CH4
Carbon Dioxide = CO2


1 CH4 = 25 CO2

The plants draw CO2 and bio-sink that carbon. The cows consume the bio-sinked carbon, and if the cows only created CO2, then it wouldn't be an issue at all. However, they create CO2 (not a problem), and a much lighter than air gas (Methane), and each molicule released is 25 times as potent of a greenhouse gas as the CO2 that was taken up.

With respect to CO2, rain forests are fairly neutral as well. With respect to Methane, they are a massive impact.

CO2 is heavier than air, and it can move in bio-cycles. Methane is very much lighter than air, and once it's created, it's forever.

If one is only going to swallow the propaganda pills issued out nightly by the media, then things appear however they make the pill.

[swbluto]

Besides, Like I said recently in another GW thread... all the carbon emitted by a cow was recently removed from the atmosphere by whatever plants the cow was eating. Net bovine atmospheric carbon impact = zero.

Perhaps a whisker of education and/or thought before speaking on a topic?

Methane = CH4
Carbon Dioxide = CO2


1 CH4 = 25 CO2

The plants draw CO2 and bio-sink that carbon. The cows consume the bio-sinked carbon, and if the cows only created CO2, then it wouldn't be an issue at all. However, they create CO2 (not a problem), and a much lighter than air gas (Methane), and each molicule released is 25 times as potent of a greenhouse gas as the CO2 that was taken up.

With respect to CO2, rain forests are fairly neutral as well. With respect to Methane, they are a massive impact.

CO2 is heavier than air, and it can move in bio-cycles. Methane is very much lighter than air, and once it's created, it's forever.

If one is only going to swallow the propaganda pills issued out nightly by the media, then things appear however they make the pill.

All good points. But, to highlight your claim,

Methane is very much lighter than air, and once it's created, it's forever.

which would be the crux of the issue (as it would accumulate, but IF it does dissipate and the cow population is kept constant, then the atmospheric methane levels should remain relatively constant), the EPA at http://www.epa.gov/methane/ counters:

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years.

[julesa]

Perhaps a whisker of education and/or thought before speaking on a topic?
...
Methane is very much lighter than air, and once it's created, it's forever.

Not exactly. Methane oxidizes into CO2 and water. Atmospheric methane has a half life of about seven years. "perhaps a whisker..."???

[TPA]

perhaps we could install pilot lights on cattle. Oxidize the methane immediately.

I had no idea life was so harmful to the planet.

[julesa]

perhaps we could install pilot lights on cattle. Oxidize the methane immediately.

I had no idea life was so harmful to the planet.

LOL

[317537]

I think its both natural and us to blame. Global warming is a natural phenomenon which is cause and effect due to us. Recently they have found coral reefs forming as far south as Tasmania.

Whether it is our fault or not things are changing fast, and exactly what can stop it? The aftermath of global warming.

There isn’t much we can do to stop it now because it has been triggered already.


As the climate changes human lives are in jeopardy, disaster, famine, disease, and our future is doomed.

Sorry to be all negative but the implication of global warming has intrinsic undeniable facts.

[EMF]

Don't worry, once the mainstream, corporate owned media finishes misinforming the public and over- hyping the Swine F..ooops I mean H1N1 "pandemic" ( No flu is serious enough to possibly disrupt sales of pork or upset those advertisers) and once the fear campaign has moved all of the vaccines for their pharmaceutical customers, they will return to hyping the global warming/climate change issue for their political friends. Then the taxation process can get underway and "solve" the problem of this doomsday scenario for us.

Cue the polar bears! But, above all: Tune in and Keep the Faith....

[swbluto]

I think its both natural and us to blame. Global warming is a natural phenomenon which is cause and effect due to us. Recently they have found coral reefs forming as far south as Tasmania.

Whether it is our fault or not things are changing fast, and exactly what can stop it? The aftermath of global warming.

There isn’t much we can do to stop it now because it has been triggered already.

It's not a matter of "stopping it" absolutely and completely effectively, it's more about minimizing future damage.

There isn't much one can do to stop the person attacking you when the attack has been triggered already. For sure, let's not try to stop them from killing you.

[liveforphysics]

I think its both natural and us to blame. Global warming is a natural phenomenon which is cause and effect due to us. Recently they have found coral reefs forming as far south as Tasmania.

Whether it is our fault or not things are changing fast, and exactly what can stop it? The aftermath of global warming.

There isn’t much we can do to stop it now because it has been triggered already.

It's not a matter of "stopping it" absolutely and completely effectively, it's more about minimizing future damage.

There isn't much one can do to stop the person attacking you when the attack has been triggered already. For sure, let's not try to stop them from killing you.

The people helping the most are the folks clear cutting rainforest, and digging drainage draining wetlands are doing the greatest global warming relief. The irony is folks like Al Gore with his increadible personal energy consumption and mega consumer practices are the folks shaking their fist at the people actually helping.

[liveforphysics]

Don't worry, once the mainstream, corporate owned media finishes misinforming the public and over- hyping the Swine F..ooops I mean H1N1 "pandemic" ( No flu is serious enough to possibly disrupt sales of pork or upset those advertisers) and once the fear campaign has moved all of the vaccines for their pharmaceutical customers, they will return to hyping the global warming/climate change issue for their political friends. Then the taxation process can get underway and "solve" the problem of this doomsday scenario for us.

Cue the polar bears! But, above all: Tune in and Keep the Faith....

Amazing how enviromental "problems" seem to follow a 4 year schedule interval isn't it?

I wana see the political human finger pointing towards the people responsible for turning the worlds largest rainforest into the Sahara desert, draining the largest inland sea ( south western US ), making Syberia go from jungle and plains to cold desert, etc etc. Temps go up and down. Some areas die, other areas blossom.

0.6deg in 100 years. I'm sure it will be hell on some places, and the greatest relief to others. People invested in certain places with low ocean front property will likely be thinking its the end of the world. People in Syberia will likely be thankful for an extra day or two of growing season.

I use CO2 (carbonic acid) that is a by product of my calcium reactor in my reef aquarium to trigger blooms of macro algae to bio-sink excess N and P waste. Ph drops about 0.3 points, the bloom triggers, BAM! All disolved CO2, NO3's, and PO4's are bio-locked in macro algae, and levels all return to normal. I don't see why this same effect couldn't happen in the oceans if something got too far out of balance.

The earth is dynamic. Things have been making crazy radical changes long before humans were burning things.

[julesa]

The people helping the most are the folks clear cutting rainforest, and digging drainage draining wetlands are doing the greatest global warming relief. The irony is folks like Al Gore with his increadible personal energy consumption and mega consumer practices are the folks shaking their fist at the people actually helping.

Cool story, bro.